McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES!

by **HiDeHo** 18.08.12 1:19

McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES!

by Nina 18.08.12 9:22

HiDeHo yet another factual video that must be seen. Your short videos give excellent access to the files that maybe viewers have not the time to read.

Thanks roses

a bunch.

by **HiDeHo** 18.08.12 11:07

I am putting alerts on the videos as one person (no need to ask who) is posting under several different names.

Considering the effort it takes to create different email accounts, register themall individually with Youtube and then log in and out with each ID to comment, they sure made it easy to be 'recognised' McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES! 110921

McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES! 110921

Saves having useless discussions with them...I will just alert each time they post so casual viewers will not be taken in.

ALERT TO MULTIPLE ID'S... That seem to enjoy talking to themselves ;o)
Michelle Williams
AmbarRose Mason
Jane Winchester
noeljjones
Una Preston
Simone McKinnon
Ava Winchester
Reto Loren
eddie wilson
giovanna marzella

and more....

by **tigger** 18.08.12 11:43

Just looked on youtube and only saw two comments - from your very own favourite HideHo! Here they are -
Who is Clarence? because both posts seem to be from PG.

Have also just read your appraisal HiDeHo...what are you trying to do?
I hope you will hang your head in shame one day. The whole of Britain it would seem are covering for this couples heinous act? Do give over! And yet you sing the praises of Goncalo Amaral?
Some people are just wired up wrong in my honest opinion!
pamgurney2 2 hours ago

I agree Clarence. The poor McCanns have been hounded over everything and this about the hire car is just ridiculous as Madeleine's DNA was not extracted from the that car.
Do wish the anti McCann brigade, spurred on by this Canadian video maker HiDeHo, would just shut up with this witch hunt now. It has been 5 years for goodness sake!
pamgurney2 2 hours ago

by **HiDeHo** 18.08.12 11:47

Added eddie wilson to the list...Just registered today so maybe I'll let her use it for a bit before posting the alert McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES! 110921

eddie wilson has replied to your comment on Panorama - Mystery of Madeleine McCann - Nov 19/2007:

So who are the others? You have a pretty tragic life HiDeHo4, if this is the only kind of thing you do with your life. Clearly, these id's are NOT talking to themselves, because YOU responded, which means that you took a LOT of interest in all their messages-

by **HiDeHo** 18.08.12 11:55

She's keeping me busy today...another surge of registrations (and its not easy to do...though she must be proficient at it now..)

She has also been posting on 'wilyboo' videos so maybe I'll pop over there with the alerts too!

giovanna marzella has made a comment on Panorama - Mystery of Madeleine McCann - Nov 19/2007:

I don't beliee that the Mccanns are guilty. It makes no sense that they would continue bringing focus to this over all these years. And it is true that there have been many cases where parents have been seen to be guilty of klling their children, only to have them come home- even after many years. Many of these cases have had poeple convinced of the parents guilt, when theywere innoent. There is a LOT of money to be made by the tabloid newspapers whose main aim is selling newspapers.

giovanna marzella has replied to your comment on Discrepancies: Madeleine Crying:

Well of course HiDeHo4- The problem here, however, is that YOU are the person who uploaded this video, and you are abusing your power and being a bully. Because, when someone disagrees with you, you simply put them on your 'multiple' user list! LOL- Not everyone has to agree with you.

by **PeterMac** 18.08.12 12:04

For me the interesting thing is that they sought to justify the findings. CM used that incredibly stupid expression, and all the stuff about nappies and so on came out.
In other words at that time they accepted that the dog had alerted.
By tthe time we get to the book, however, we are told that it was a false positive reading, and it is implied that Martin Grime was guilty of the most serious breach of professional conduct.
Yet another contradiction.

by **HiDeHo** 18.08.12 12:08

Thanks PeterMac

Inspiration for another McMinute McMinutes: McCanns Explain CADAVER odour as ROTTING MEAT and NAPPIES! 110921

by rolodog 30.01.13 2:30

Long time lurker. I just want to add my support to all the excellent work you do on this forum. Things have changed a lot since 2007 and they can not manipulate the British public so easily any more.People are waking up.

HideHo your videos are very,very good and the more they are seen the more people will WAKE UP. I have just watched a lot of them and I am shocked all over again at all the lies.

by **HiDeHo** 30.01.13 3:10

Thanks rolodog....good to know that they can possibly make a difference! Appreciated!

by **Hobs** 30.01.13 4:11

Innocent parents on seeing a dog reacting in the apartment wouldn't relax and claim the dog is junk science ( especially given all the detection jobs dogs are trained for)

Instinct when their child is missing a dogs react to blood and cadaverine is Did the abductor hurt my child, did he cause her to bleed, did he kill her and then remove her body in order to conceal his crime?

They would be demanding to know who hired the car before they did, who had access to the car and so on. The dogs reacted to the car they hired weeks after Madeleine vanished find who had access to the car before they did.

Guilty parents however on seeing the dogs react know they have been found out, the abduction story is a lie and the proof is in the blood and cadaver dogs, the fluids found.

All they can do is demean and deride the dogs, claim they have an excuse for the fluids on the walls and floor (nosebleed) dirty diapers, rotting meat and sweaty sandals or the fluids found in the car (which they later perjured themselves with in the leveson enquiry)

You can bet they had someone check to see if anyone had died previously in the apartment, if there had been they would have claimed the dogs reacted to that ( more believable than the dogs are lying)

I vaguely recall they demanded tracker dogs be used to see if they could find Madeleine, the scent was lost on the road if i recall correctly.

They can't have it both ways.

Either the dogs were correct in that they found her scent and traces of blood and cadaverine or they are all wrong and the tracker dogs did not find her scent. It can't be both. i like this dog cos he worked in our favor i don't like those dogs because they revealed the truth.

Both Keela and Eddie had perfect records which continued after the left portugal and worked on other cases indicating where bodies had lain or were buried.

How can the dogs be right in all their other cases and wrong on just their case?

It simply isn't believable or logical.

What is telling is rather than claim no cadaverine, the dogs got it wrong instead we get the excuses, she came into contact with 6 corpses before the trip.

How did she then get cadaverine on a childs t shirts items of her clothing and cuddlecat when all she had to do was check for a pulse at best and the sig the certificate.

She would have worn disposable gloves at most to check the body (depending on condition) or use a couple of her fingers to check pulse/temp.

cross contamination won't work since it would then be affecting all the items of clothing she had come in touch with.

Why would she take her daughters favorite toy with her to check a corpse?

Surely if it is Madeleine's favorite toy it will be with her pretty much 24/7

The more they try and come up with a pausible excuse, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Guilty people find excuses to explain away anything incriminating, innocent people demand to know if the evidence will find the perpetrator and do not try to explain it away.

by Guest 30.01.13 8:58

Another thing is, the Person that lived in the apartment the week before Mccann arrived has told that he bled in the appartment.( it can be read in the witness statement )

And they have never used that as an argument for the dog findings, infact they have never mentioned it at all . Why? Because if one dog is right smelling the blood, surely the other one smelling cadaverin would be right also.....

And thay dont want that do they ?

Statement Paul A Gordon http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

While we were in Portugal there were no incidents worthy of record, beyond this man that I have described, however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood. Aside from this, to the best of my knowledge no one else cut themselves nor did anyone die in the apartment.

by sheila.edwards 19.06.13 0:25

still cant understand why they told of dirty nappies and meat bag leaked in boot of car etc , then say there were no body fluids. blood/urine ARE both body fluids. ive given up trying to phatom the dna ?genuine or a chance match within 3 sample dna.I would want to know who hired that car before first off.!

by worriedmum 19.06.13 11:32

sorry to say this but it seems the dogs ARE unreliable. If they were alerting to 'rotting meat, nappies and sweaty flip flops', then they should also have alerted to
sweaty running shoes in 5a
sweaty sandals
sweaty palms
sweaty armpits
sweaty sports gear
sweaty sports bag(oops maybe not)
sweaty anything anywhere
dirty nappies in the bin
dirty nappies on bums
the wc in 5a
every seat in 5a
every car seat
every seat in every apartment
anyone's bottom in the vicinity
the kitchen bin
the Tapas bin
every bin everywhere

SEE! If they alerted to 'sweaty flip flops, nappies and rotting meat',those dogs should have had sense overload the moment they were let out of the handler's vehicle. They should have been barking, marking and pointing like a dog training video on fast forward. And they didn't. So they must be er,as someone once said 'incredibly unreliable'?

IMO

by sheila.edwards 19.06.13 11:52

agree. then by time at leveson there were no body fluids ! it seems ludicrous

by **PeterMac** 19.06.13 12:09

sheila.edwards wrote:agree. then by time at leveson there were no body fluids ! it seems ludicrous

Fluids are notoriously unreliable. They run away, and they evaporate.
By the time of Leveson it was probably correct to say there ARE no fluids.

by sheila.edwards 19.06.13 12:16

Yes agree, but why did they say WERE ! spin

:spin:blood, sweat, ARE body fluids, it would be ludicrous for drs to not know that I would say anyway

by lj 19.06.13 15:29

worriedmum wrote:sorry to say this but it seems the dogs ARE unreliable. If they were alerting to 'rotting meat, nappies and sweaty flip flops', then they should also have alerted to
sweaty running shoes in 5a
sweaty sandals
sweaty palms
sweaty armpits
sweaty sports gear
sweaty sports bag(oops maybe not)
sweaty anything anywhere
dirty nappies in the bin
dirty nappies on bums
the wc in 5a
every seat in 5a
every car seat
every seat in every apartment
anyone's bottom in the vicinity
the kitchen bin
the Tapas bin
every bin everywhere

SEE! If they alerted to 'sweaty flip flops, nappies and rotting meat',those dogs should have had sense overload the moment they were let out of the handler's vehicle. They should have been barking, marking and pointing like a dog training video on fast forward. And they didn't. So they must be er,as someone once said 'incredibly unreliable'?

IMO

by plebgate 19.06.13 15:30

Good post worriedmum.

@sheila.E
I believe that if they thought they would be "interogated" at Leveson they would not have gone as witnesses.

by sheila.edwards 19.06.13 18:54

oh yes, well they dident do well with that topic as witnesses did they.! Even the smallest of body cells has body fluid in to support the nucleus
Facts ONLY not nonsenses, would have been best to be only allowed.

by worriedmum 20.06.13 17:42

worriedmum wrote:sorry to say this but it seems the dogs ARE unreliable. If they were alerting to 'rotting meat, nappies and sweaty flip flops', then they should also have alerted to
sweaty running shoes in 5a
sweaty sandals
sweaty palms
sweaty armpits
sweaty sports gear
sweaty sports bag(oops maybe not)
sweaty anything anywhere
dirty nappies in the bin
dirty nappies on bums
the wc in 5a
every seat in 5a
every car seat
every seat in every apartment
anyone's bottom in the vicinity
the kitchen bin
the Tapas bin
every bin everywhere

SEE! If they alerted to 'sweaty flip flops, nappies and rotting meat',those dogs should have had sense overload the moment they were let out of the handler's vehicle. They should have been barking, marking and pointing like a dog training video on fast forward. And they didn't. So they must be er,as someone once said 'incredibly unreliable'?

IMO

Funny how these potential 'red herrings' were not offered in any of the recent trials involving the use of these dogs isn't it? Why would defence lawyers not expose any shortcomings of using these dogs?

by **PeterMac** 20.06.13 18:39

Funny how these potential 'red herrings' were not offered in any of the recent trials involving the use of these dogs isn't it? Why would defence lawyers not expose any shortcomings of using these dogs?

The only one who tried recently seems to have been Zapata, where at first instance they managed to get the judge to keep the dog's evidence from the jury, only to have the whole edifice collapse round their ears when he confessed to the crime and confirmed that the dogs had been absolutely correct in every one of the locations in which he had hidden the body over the previous 29 YEARS.
Not just an own goal. This was conceding the entire tournament.

It has always puzzled me why Kate was allowed to publish that nonsense in the book, when she as a "scientist' is perfectly capable of reading the many academic papers which are scattered around the net, and would be aware through her reading of the BMJ and The Lancet that dogs are being used in more and more medical situations. And that she was permitted to say something which is so easily disproved.

p.219
Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with ten. [1]
p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days.

I have just noted that wording "a body that had been removed so quickly".
How did she know it had been removed so quickly. Why is she telling us there was a BODY, rather than a living child.

by statsman 20.06.13 18:53

This is Kate adding two and two and coming up with ten.

It seems that she is saying that the PJ believed there Madeleine's body was in the apartment for a very short time but even if that were so the cadaver dog would not have reacted to it because of the short time it was there.

It reminds me of Billy Bunter's defence when accused of eating someone else's cake.

"I didn't do it and besides it tasted so horrible that I wouldn't have eaten it anyway".

by **tigger** 20.06.13 19:10

PeterMac wrote:
sheila.edwards wrote:agree. then by time at leveson there were no body fluids ! it seems ludicrous
Fluids are notoriously unreliable. They run away, and they evaporate.
By the time of Leveson it was probably correct to say there ARE no fluids.

- but there was DNA in the car, even some of it matched Maddie's DNA - honest, from the horse's mouth (Gerry) in the second Swedish interview.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id411.html
Fredrik Skavlan: There were rumours about DNA in the car... in the car that you hired?

Gerry McCann: And we want to be absolutely clear about these things, you know, there's two aspects: we didn't hire that car for 3 and half weeks until after Madeleine was taken, and the second aspect is there's no DNA match. Errr... You know, when you see the files there's a mixed sample of DNA that comes from 5 people and obviously some of it matched Madeleine's. But of course, all, of our DNA matches Madeleine's and...
unquote

So does that mean that DNA isn't unique to any one person? Or did Gerry miss that class at Medical college?

by Ayniia 20.06.13 19:44

PeterMac wrote:
Funny how these potential 'red herrings' were not offered in any of the recent trials involving the use of these dogs isn't it? Why would defence lawyers not expose any shortcomings of using these dogs?
The only one who tried recently seems to have been Zapata, where at first instance they managed to get the judge to keep the dog's evidence from the jury, only to have the whole edifice collapse round their ears when he confessed to the crime and confirmed that the dogs had been absolutely correct in every one of the locations in which he had hidden the body over the previous 29 YEARS.
Not just an own goal. This was conceding the entire tournament.

It has always puzzled me why Kate was allowed to publish that nonsense in the book, when she as a "scientist' is perfectly capable of reading the many academic papers which are scattered around the net, and would be aware through her reading of the BMJ and The Lancet that dogs are being used in more and more medical situations. And that she was permitted to say something which is so easily disproved.
p.219
Did they really believe that a dog could smell the ‘odour of death’ three months later from a body that had been removed so swiftly? They were adding two and two and coming up with ten. [1]
p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days.

I have just noted that wording "a body that had been removed so quickly".
How did she know it had been removed so quickly. Why is she telling us there was a BODY, rather than a living child.

Reminded me of Haut de la Garenne...
And Kate a question for you, if the odor of death only lasts one month WHY did your clothes and cuddle cat smelled of cadavers you've been around MORE THAN A MONTH earlier and why was it so important for the PJ to establish that no one else had died in 5A before ?!