Re: The dogs and CI de Almeida's report.

by Guest 12.11.13 13:58

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That was supposedly because one of his children had been sick.

There was an awful lot of sickness going on during this holiday.

The OC seems like a strange place; I've stayed in many different self catering apartments in Portugal but can never recall having a washing machine. Is it because they are owner occupied at some times and not at others? As somebody else mentioned, very inconsiderate if one of your neighbours decides to start doing laundry at three in the morning.

by Guest 12.11.13 16:01

I Love Satsumas wrote:
PeterMac wrote:CR.
It really is a conspiracy too far for me that the PJ would hold onto a corpse for three months, and then go and smear it round the apartment and onto clothing they had seized that morning.
And then - one supposes - put it back in the fridge !
I loved the idea when it first came up some years ago. Now I find it hilarious.

(I realise that you are not suggesting this, but it was one of the funnier ones the pros put up.)
Have been following the forum for a while, and happy to let others do the talking. But if someone wanted to do such a thing, they wouldn't need a corpse - the chemicals that Eddie detected can be manufactured very easily, and then planted

That's interesting!

How is that done?

by **PeterMac** 12.11.13 16:48

it is done by leaving a corpse to lie around and mopping up the "juices" !

Alternatively 1,5-Diaminopentane, otherwise known as cadaverine can be produced from/ the starting materials 1,5-dichloropentane (obtainable from tetrahydropyran), glutarodinitrile, or glutaraldehyde (e.g., Relugan, BASF).
every police officer knows that ! ! !
It is lesson 4 on Thursday, - after Parking Tickets.

by chillyheat 12.11.13 16:55

PeterMac wrote:it is done by leaving a corpse to lie around and mopping up the "juices" !

Alternatively 1,5-Diaminopentane, otherwise known as cadaverine can be produced from/ the starting materials 1,5-dichloropentane (obtainable from tetrahydropyran), glutarodinitrile, or glutaraldehyde (e.g., Relugan, BASF).
every police officer knows that ! ! !
It is lesson 4 on Thursday, - after Parking Tickets.

You crack me up at times Peter

by **PeterMac** 12.11.13 17:56

Humour is often the only way of remaining sane.
Which is why I sympathise with anyone who makes cartoons, jokes, T shirts of anything else.
The whole thing is so ghastly that only humour will see us through.
Laughter is a good medicine.
It can wash away the grief of losing a child, apparently

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 11:15

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

A DRUG dealer who was rumbled when a police dog sniffed out cocaine and heroin in his car in Northamptonshire has been jailed for five years.
Christopher Rowe, aged 29, of Thornton Heath, Surrey, was sentenced at Northampton Crown Court for possession with intent to supply cocaine and heroin.
He was stopped by police when travelling on the A43 Lumbertubs Way, on May 7.
His car was searched and a police dog found the drugs hidden inside.

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

A TEENAGER who fled the scene of a collision in a car taken following a burglary was traced thanks to the work of a police sniffer dog.
Thomas Andrew Cairns took the keys to the Peugeot 206 in a break-in at the owner’s home in Gilesgate, Durham, in the early hours of April 29.
Durham Crown Court heard he also took alcohol and a mobile phone, before driving off in the car, parked outside the house in Wakenshaw Road.
Kathryn Dunn, prosecuting, said a police patrol car spotted the Peugeot driving erratically as it headed through Durham and indicated for the driver to stop.
But Cairns ignored the request and carried on for a short distance before colliding with a Ford Galaxy car.
He ran off, leaving a passenger in the damaged Peugeot, but a police dog followed his scent after sniffing his cap, left in the car.
Miss Dunn said the trail led to an abandoned shirt found nearby, and this helped yield a forensic match with Cairns, whose DNA was on file after a previous offence for battery.

Damn dogs !
It is one piece of evidence they will NEVER be able to get rid of.
Tannermen and Measlemen and Smithmen and Tractormen and Barcelonawomen come and go with the tides of Tabloids.
But the dogs go on forever.

People are serving LIFE terms solely on the evidence of dogs.

by Liz Eagles 13.11.13 11:42

In the search for Madeleine the McCanns were given the most elite dogs from UK and yet these highly trained dogs were found to be 'notoriously unreliable'.

'Ask the dogs Sandra' said Gerry. I don't think Gerry likes Sandra much.

by Guest 13.11.13 11:45

PeterMac wrote:it is done by leaving a corpse to lie around and mopping up the "juices" !

Alternatively 1,5-Diaminopentane, otherwise known as cadaverine can be produced from/ the starting materials 1,5-dichloropentane (obtainable from tetrahydropyran), glutarodinitrile, or glutaraldehyde (e.g., Relugan, BASF).
every police officer knows that ! ! !
It is lesson 4 on Thursday, - after Parking Tickets.

Set me straight on this: are you telling us that, if the McCs purport as a thesis that GA c.s. could have fabricated the smell later detected by the cadaver dogs, they could be right?

by Guest 13.11.13 11:54

Portia wrote:
PeterMac wrote:it is done by leaving a corpse to lie around and mopping up the "juices" !

Alternatively 1,5-Diaminopentane, otherwise known as cadaverine can be produced from/ the starting materials 1,5-dichloropentane (obtainable from tetrahydropyran), glutarodinitrile, or glutaraldehyde (e.g., Relugan, BASF).
every police officer knows that ! ! !
It is lesson 4 on Thursday, - after Parking Tickets.
Set me straight on this: are you telling us that, if the McCs purport as a thesis that GA c.s. could have fabricated the smell later detected by the cadaver dogs, they could be right?

I mentioned that possibility on another thread as being something like "a hardcore version of SY's finding of Tannerman". I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 13:10

Clay Regazzoni wrote:. . . I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.

I suppose we do for several reasons.
1 The dogs are the ONLY witnesses who / which have no reason to lie. Almost everyone else apparently does.
2 We can actually watch the video of the dogs in action, and draw our own conclusions
3 We can research the value of dogs as research tools in medicine, explosive, drugs and other operations, and learn how incredibly reliable they are.
4 We can see that agencies throughout the civilised world are using more and more dogs to assist them
5 We can then reflect on the undoubted fact that the two dogs in question alerted to all those items and places associated with the McCanns AND TO NO OTHERS.
That is the give-away. There were no false positives.

And yes the dogs are a problem for any theory or hypothesis which does not have Madeleine's death in the apartment at its very core.
And that means that the Fund is a Fraud, and always has been, and that means that Tanner's sighting is nonsense - Ah, yes, someone else has mentioned that recently, haven't they . .
And so on.

by **tigger** 13.11.13 14:15

@PM and@Clay:

Consider that murphy's law can apply here. There can be both planning and accident, it doesn't have to be 'or' but could well be 'and'. Imo there's quite a lot to support that possibility.

by Guest 13.11.13 14:17

PeterMac wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:. . . I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.
I suppose we do for several reasons.
1 The dogs are the ONLY witnesses who / which have no reason to lie. Almost everyone else apparently does.
2 We can actually watch the video of the dogs in action, and draw our own conclusions
3 We can research the value of dogs as research tools in medicine, explosive, drugs and other operations, and learn how incredibly reliable they are.
4 We can see that agencies throughout the civilised world are using more and more dogs to assist them
5 We can then reflect on the undoubted fact that the two dogs in question alerted to all those items and places associated with the McCanns AND TO NO OTHERS.
That is the give-away. There were no false positives.

And yes the dogs are a problem for any theory or hypothesis which does not have Madeleine's death in the apartment at its very core.
And that means that the Fund is a Fraud, and always has been, and that means that Tanner's sighting is nonsense - Ah, yes, someone else has mentioned that recently, haven't they . .
And so on.

It's a shame the little tailwaggers can't be taught to speak!

Even accepting the dogs' findings at face value engages you in much theorising anyway as you've got to explain where the body went in between being in the apartment and being in the car.

by Guest 13.11.13 14:30

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:. . . I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.
I suppose we do for several reasons.
1 The dogs are the ONLY witnesses who / which have no reason to lie. Almost everyone else apparently does.
2 We can actually watch the video of the dogs in action, and draw our own conclusions
3 We can research the value of dogs as research tools in medicine, explosive, drugs and other operations, and learn how incredibly reliable they are.
4 We can see that agencies throughout the civilised world are using more and more dogs to assist them
5 We can then reflect on the undoubted fact that the two dogs in question alerted to all those items and places associated with the McCanns AND TO NO OTHERS.
That is the give-away. There were no false positives.

And yes the dogs are a problem for any theory or hypothesis which does not have Madeleine's death in the apartment at its very core.
And that means that the Fund is a Fraud, and always has been, and that means that Tanner's sighting is nonsense - Ah, yes, someone else has mentioned that recently, haven't they . .
And so on.
It's a shame the little tailwaggers can't be taught to speak!

Even accepting the dogs' findings at face value engages you in much theorising anyway as you've got to explain where the body went in between being in the apartment and being in the car.

The dogs evidence was used in this case where there was no body, Prout went to jail, and confessed 2 years later!! If you watch the documentary on the CI channel Eddie was used IIRC.

Killer Adrian Prout shows police where he buried wife's body

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

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 15:14

candyfloss wrote:
The dogs evidence was used in this case where there was no body, Prout went to jail, and confessed 2 years later!! If you watch the documentary on the CI channel Eddie was used IIRC.
Killer Adrian Prout shows police where he buried wife's body
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And as they did in the other cases detailed in that e-book. In most of them no body has ever been found, but the perps are serving long sentences.

The accused may not like the findings, but juries and judges across the world understand.

by Guest 13.11.13 16:14

They are discussing the dogs on twitter again, I won't put up the persons name big grin

We just don't know what Eddie was alerting to. They can confuse the issue, though. #mccann

All we know is he alerted to organic compounds, source unknown. #mccann

lol4

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 16:16

They just do not understand. Probably deliberately.

by Guest 13.11.13 16:21

Yeah, it get worse,now this person saying it was a professional abductor who knew exactly how much chloroform to administer big grin

A professional abductor would know how much to use without fatal consequencer. #mccann

by sallypelt 13.11.13 16:32

The dogs only confirmed what was known for months before, and that is Madeleine was no more, and there was no abduction. Parents, who have nothing to hide, do NOT tell lies. It's a simple as that.

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 16:39

They are mad. Bonkers.

by **PeterMac** 13.11.13 18:49

And what is arguably worse is that the McCanns, doctors, and in one case an anaesthetist permit this total b**** to go out and then to reman in the public domain.
They know that chloroform is not possible, but for 6 years they have remained silent, even when their own Clous-edgar came up with it.
Ah, yes, that reminds me . . .
Why is it that they WANT the public to be misled ?
Why do they want people not to think ?

by **tigger** 13.11.13 19:28

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:. . . I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.
I suppose we do for several reasons.
1 The dogs are the ONLY witnesses who / which have no reason to lie. Almost everyone else apparently does.
2 We can actually watch the video of the dogs in action, and draw our own conclusions
3 We can research the value of dogs as research tools in medicine, explosive, drugs and other operations, and learn how incredibly reliable they are.
4 We can see that agencies throughout the civilised world are using more and more dogs to assist them
5 We can then reflect on the undoubted fact that the two dogs in question alerted to all those items and places associated with the McCanns AND TO NO OTHERS.
That is the give-away. There were no false positives.

And yes the dogs are a problem for any theory or hypothesis which does not have Madeleine's death in the apartment at its very core.
And that means that the Fund is a Fraud, and always has been, and that means that Tanner's sighting is nonsense - Ah, yes, someone else has mentioned that recently, haven't they . .
And so on.
It's a shame the little tailwaggers can't be taught to speak!

Even accepting the dogs' findings at face value engages you in much theorising anyway as you've got to explain where the body went in between being in the apartment and being in the car.

Can't see a problem there at all.
E.g. Plan A: set up fake abduction with prepared photographs and info which doesn't look much like the girl
Motive, money, ambassadors for lost children etc. Child to go to a permanent home or to be found at a later date.
Event: child has fatal accident and dies.
Plan B...
Some support for this in the early days by what they said. It wasn't till the 17th May that a live and unharmed Maddie was 'proposed'.
It would also explain the attitude of family and friends better than any other scenario imo.
So: dogs are 100% right and Clay: residue in the car indicated the body had been refridgerated.

by Guest 13.11.13 19:30

Death, Peter. By their hands or otherwise.
It's really becoming Shakespearean ...

by Monty Heck 13.11.13 21:09

So dogs never before used in any crime scene in Portugal are brought over on the high recommendation of the British police, but before they have a chance to prove their worth (and the large fee attached), some bright spark in the PJ decided to sprinkle synthetic cadaverine around 5A and the hire car in order to frame the McCs. And what a lucky chap he was because he chose exactly the same locations as the blood spots later pinpointed by the dogs, which had been missed by forensics so their existence was previously unknown.

Therefore because synthetic cadaverine had been brilliantly planted with millimetre precision, the blood vestiges thus located were not a cause for concern by parents of a missing child, despite there being a reasonable DNA match to her. Scarcely plausible, one would have thought.

by Guest 14.11.13 8:23

tigger wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:. . . I doubt it happened, but let's face it, the dogs are problematic in a number of theories, mainly ones revolving around substitutes or financially motivated fake abduction. And yet they're the one thing that everybody takes at face value.
I suppose we do for several reasons.
1 The dogs are the ONLY witnesses who / which have no reason to lie. Almost everyone else apparently does.
2 We can actually watch the video of the dogs in action, and draw our own conclusions
3 We can research the value of dogs as research tools in medicine, explosive, drugs and other operations, and learn how incredibly reliable they are.
4 We can see that agencies throughout the civilised world are using more and more dogs to assist them
5 We can then reflect on the undoubted fact that the two dogs in question alerted to all those items and places associated with the McCanns AND TO NO OTHERS.
That is the give-away. There were no false positives.

And yes the dogs are a problem for any theory or hypothesis which does not have Madeleine's death in the apartment at its very core.
And that means that the Fund is a Fraud, and always has been, and that means that Tanner's sighting is nonsense - Ah, yes, someone else has mentioned that recently, haven't they . .
And so on.
It's a shame the little tailwaggers can't be taught to speak!

Even accepting the dogs' findings at face value engages you in much theorising anyway as you've got to explain where the body went in between being in the apartment and being in the car.
Can't see a problem there at all.
E.g. Plan A: set up fake abduction with prepared photographs and info which doesn't look much like the girl
Motive, money, ambassadors for lost children etc. Child to go to a permanent home or to be found at a later date.
Event: child has fatal accident and dies.
Plan B...
Some support for this in the early days by what they said. It wasn't till the 17th May that a live and unharmed Maddie was 'proposed'.
It would also explain the attitude of family and friends better than any other scenario imo.
So: dogs are 100% right and Clay: residue in the car indicated the body had been refridgerated.

Tigger, I believe from reading elsewhere that you also suspect a substitute was involved?

I ~~solved the case~~ came up with a hummdinging new theory last night reading CMoMM on my phone, under the covers, whilst being kept awake by the howling wind outside. It does engender me with a small amount of sympathy for the McCanns however, which is a strange feeling after all this time.

One quick question - who had access to 5A between the night of the abduction and the "day of the dogs"? Was it locked down/guarded or after the initial forensics had been done and the hoohah died down was it just left empty? I think I can now account for the smell in the car, on Kate's clothes and probably on Cuddle Cat, but NOT in the apartment. Previously I had the problem the other way round.