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, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 13.02.13 19:16



168 hair samples and 1 saliva sample were taken from 5A on the day after Madeleine disappeared.

31 were unusable and 10 were non human leaving 127 viable samples.


There are some varying results but I think the last one is correct but I'm open to opinion.

Of 127

Kate matched 42
Gerry matched 24
GNR Roque matched 11
The Gordons (previous residents) seem to have matched 8
Inspector Martins matched 3
Russell matched 2
David Payne and Matt matched 1 each.
Irene Ferro matches 1


If my addition is correct 93 are matched with 34 viable samples unmatched.

Of 34 type J&B have 3 hairs and type VG7,D1 & Q have 2 hairs. These were mainly found in the entrance hallway and the lounge so it's doubtful they belonged to the twins and nothing matched Madeleine. The report suggests a grouping by mitocondrail structure and nothing was linked to the McCanns except for GNR Roque so it's doubtful their DNA was there. The twin's DNA had been submitted prior to the last batch of matches.

The remaining 22 belong to different people and again it's doubtful that the twins weren't linked to their parents so I'm assuming their DNA wasn't found.

Children are messy beings as Charlie Gordon shows by having a drool on the spare bed and depositing hairs on the floor. Yet no trace of the McCann kids in 5A.

And no hair deposits from any of the female T7, strange considering Fiona spent most of the night there as Diane looked after her kids.

It's also interesting that on average 17% of the hairs found in the apartment had no roots (stem only) whereas at Madeleine's bed 89% had no roots therefore would probably never be identified.

I can't see where any of the bed clothes (apart from the saliva sample) was sent for testing so unless I've missed something there's no evidence either way that Madeleine slept in her bed.

There are other factors to consider, the McCanns taking the sheets from the travel cots belonging to the twins. The disappearance of Madeleine's pink blanket, contamination of Cuddle Cat, Madeleine's toothbrush, hairbrush and shoes.

If the apartment was "deep cleaned" it would need to have been done by the McCanns (unless the T7 wore surgical garb) and how did they manage it, when did they do it and where were the children kept outside of creche hours?

If the apartment wasn't deep cleaned where did the children sleep and eat?

Why did the McCanns turn in the children's DNA to UK authorities and not Portuguese? Why when the twins DNA was requested in May was it not provided until 18/07/07?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by saltnpepper on 13.02.13 20:14

You could be forgiven for thinking 5A was only used after the possible accident for storage & setting the scene

Just had a quick look for average daily hair loss...

Some experts believe daily hair loss of between 50 and 100 hairs can be considered normal
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-many-hairs-are-lost-from-the-average-human-body-every-day.htm

so the amount of hairs collected does suggest cleaning or little use of 5A
avatar
saltnpepper

Posts : 154
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : wales

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 13.02.13 20:27

Why did the McCanns turn in the children's DNA to UK authorities and not Portuguese? Why when the twins DNA was requested in May was it not provided until 18/07/07?

@ Finn

IIRC the twins dna was taken in Portugal via mouth swabs by the Portuguese police

Madeleines's DNA via her pillow in her house in Leicester was sent to the Portuguese police via the UK police, as that is where it was collected from

Do you have a link to the twins DNA being requested at all and in May and being provided mid July?

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 13.02.13 21:56

Yes, apologies, I should have added the links.

This is the main link for the analysis and you can see where they receive the DNA report from UK.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm

But here is where they processed it in UK and they mention it was Sarah Vraitch who got the samples

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


avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 14.02.13 12:08

In the book Kate says they all gathered on Madeleine's bed for a bed time story, there were only 4 hairs found on the bed, one was Kate's, one was unidentified and 2 had no roots.

And on the floor by the bed 18 were unidentified and had no roots.

If someone has their hair tied up it might explain why. I don't know if the cleaner had long hair but Rachel and Jane did.

As did Cat Nanny and Charlotte Pennington.

If the apartment had been cleaned to the extent that all evidence of the children being there had been removed how did they miss the 8 hairs belonging to the Gordons?

But yet the cleaner verifies that the McCanns slept in the room with the balcony and that all beds had been slept in except for the spare bed in the children's bedroom.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 15.02.13 1:00

Finn wrote:In the book Kate says they all gathered on Madeleine's bed for a bed time story, there were only 4 hairs found on the bed, one was Kate's, one was unidentified and 2 had no roots.

And on the floor by the bed 18 were unidentified and had no roots.

If someone has their hair tied up it might explain why. I don't know if the cleaner had long hair but Rachel and Jane did.

As did Cat Nanny and Charlotte Pennington.

If the apartment had been cleaned to the extent that all evidence of the children being there had been removed how did they miss the 8 hairs belonging to the Gordons?

But yet the cleaner verifies that the McCanns slept in the room with the balcony and that all beds had been slept in except for the spare bed in the children's bedroom.

Charlotte Pennington was never in the flat and Jane wasnt probs Rachel wasnt either

As for the twins, their dnA had been sampled and cross referenced by end June not mid july as you said

Found no referenxe to Gordon hair in 5a either

Probs cross wired

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by southern_gal on 15.02.13 15:18

The ONLY forensic evidence found in that apartment which indicated Maddie had been in the apartment was DNA from blood discovered behind the couch. Also located near the blood a dog trained specifically for detecting a very specific odor alerted to the presence of cadaver scent. During this examination the cadaver dog alerted to additional areas in the apartment specifically in the parents bedroom of the cadaver scent, Kate's clothing, a piece of clothing belonging to a child of Kate's and a stuffed animal belonging to Maddie as reported by Kate.

Sadly the only evidence of Maddie being in the apartment points to that being the location of where she died.
avatar
southern_gal

Posts : 72
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-24
Location : Tennessee

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by sallypelt on 15.02.13 16:01

At the very beginning of this sorry saga, wasn't it stated that the McCann's went shopping for cleaning items, such as bleach etc, which many people found strange, as they were on holiday?

sallypelt

Posts : 3652
Reputation : 810
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by worriedmum on 15.02.13 16:26

not heard that before....
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1842
Reputation : 439
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 15.02.13 20:45

@southern_gal wrote:The ONLY forensic evidence found in that apartment which indicated Maddie had been in the apartment was DNA from blood discovered behind the couch. Also located near the blood a dog trained specifically for detecting a very specific odor alerted to the presence of cadaver scent. During this examination the cadaver dog alerted to additional areas in the apartment specifically in the parents bedroom of the cadaver scent, Kate's clothing, a piece of clothing belonging to a child of Kate's and a stuffed animal belonging to Maddie as reported by Kate.

Sadly the only evidence of Maddie being in the apartment points to that being the location of where she died.


The cadaver dog also alerts to dried blood from a living person, so its not a given he alerted to cadaver scent ie from a dead body behind the sofa, neither is it a given that he didn't. It COULD have been that both dogs alerted to blood there. It also could be that they didn't. The FACT that Eddie was NOT alerting to blood in the parents room and on the clothes, as proven by the fact that Keela did NOT react in those areas, could suggest he wasn't doing so behind the sofa either. In any case, there was a cadaver aka dead body alert by Eddie in at LEAST two areas, possibly more, ie the verandah, garden and cuddlecat. the video of the dog searches don't show Keela sent to detect in those places.

Having said all that, yes, you are right! But the lack of Madeleine's DNA in the flat or the twins doesn't mean they all were never there like some have suggested ? it COULD suggest cleaning though before all the people turning up at the apartment after, having their dna all over. But none of the kids.


ETA let's not forget that 15 markers of Madeleine found in the boot of the car after, even thoughthe sample was a mix of three people, was from BLOOD that Keela alerted to, as she alerts to NOTHING unless it is mixed with blood, ie she alerts to blood only. Now, this could NOT be Gerrys blood as he only shares 10 or so markers with Madeleine. And certainly not grandparents uncles and aunties etc as they tried to make out, that that is where it could have come from, as their genetic profile would be even more distant to Madeleine's


I dunno, are there any DNA experts here? Could 15 markers out of 19 of a dna profile be explained away as family? And did one or more of that family have stuff with blood on it in the boot?

Fish and beef dna doesn't count



Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 15.02.13 20:50

@sallypelt wrote:At the very beginning of this sorry saga, wasn't it stated that the McCann's went shopping for cleaning items, such as bleach etc, which many people found strange, as they were on holiday?

I remember that!! Wasn't it supposed to have been bought at the Baptista by card, yet they claimed not to have cards? It came out around the time of the washed curtains affair IIRC.

____________________
The truth will out.
avatar
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 15.02.13 21:00

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
@southern_gal wrote:The ONLY forensic evidence found in that apartment which indicated Maddie had been in the apartment was DNA from blood discovered behind the couch. Also located near the blood a dog trained specifically for detecting a very specific odor alerted to the presence of cadaver scent. During this examination the cadaver dog alerted to additional areas in the apartment specifically in the parents bedroom of the cadaver scent, Kate's clothing, a piece of clothing belonging to a child of Kate's and a stuffed animal belonging to Maddie as reported by Kate.

Sadly the only evidence of Maddie being in the apartment points to that being the location of where she died.


The cadaver dog also alerts to dried blood from a living person, so its not a given he alerted to cadaver scent ie from a dead body behind the sofa, neither is it a given that he didn't. It COULD have been that both dogs alerted to blood there. It also could be that they didn't. The FACT that Eddie was NOT alerting to blood in the parents room and on the clothes, as proven by the fact that Keela did NOT react in those areas, could suggest he wasn't doing so behind the sofa either. In any case, there was a cadaver aka dead body alert by Eddie in at LEAST two areas, possibly more, ie the verandah, garden and cuddlecat. the video of the dog searches don't show Keela sent to detect in those places.

Having said all that, yes, you are right! But the lack of Madeleine's DNA in the flat or the twins doesn't mean they all were never there like some have suggested ? it COULD suggest cleaning though before all the people turning up at the apartment after, having their dna all over. But none of the kids.




I gave the link a while ago re this in bold. Different signals for blood and cadaver scent. Blood and the dog sits still and does not move ie freezes, cadaver scent and Keela barks. It is in the PJ files. Otherwise how else would the trainer know what they are reacting to. They are trained to respond in a different manner to blood and cadaver, although Keela is mainly a blood dog, and Eddie blood and cadaver, so if Keela reacts by freezing on the spot to blood, Eddie is brought in and barks if cadaver scent is present.

Stop and think about it, how many times people bleed in their homes, although wiped up the dog still would alert to it, therefore that is why Eddie can then establish if a dead body has been there.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 15.02.13 21:16

I gave the link a while ago re this in bold. Different signals for blood and cadaver scent. Blood and the dog sits still and does not move ie freezes, cadaver scent and Keela barks. It is in the PJ files. Otherwise how else would the trainer know what they are reacting to. They are trained to respond in a different manner to blood and cadaver, although Keela is mainly a blood dog, and Eddie blood and cadaver, so if Keela reacts by freezing on the spot to blood, Eddie is brought in and barks if cadaver scent is present.

Stop and think about it, how many times people bleed in their homes, although wiped up the dog still would alert to it, therefore that is why Eddie can then establish if a dead body has been there.

--
Good point about how would the trainer know, but
Keela does not bark. She sits still.
Eddie always goes in first and Keela after, so no, Eddie wouldn't brought in after Keela, Keela is the blood dog, she doeang need corroboragion
Eddie is sent in first to see if a dead body is/was there, if he barks and if nothing is found, Keela is taken in to see if blood is there as forensic evidence

I DO think the fact that Eddie can also alert to blood,has been abused by some in their btw failed attempt to assert there was no cadaver dead body scent

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 15.02.13 21:27

@Inspectorfrost wrote:I gave the link a while ago re this in bold. Different signals for blood and cadaver scent. Blood and the dog sits still and does not move ie freezes, cadaver scent and Keela barks. It is in the PJ files. Otherwise how else would the trainer know what they are reacting to. They are trained to respond in a different manner to blood and cadaver, although Keela is mainly a blood dog, and Eddie blood and cadaver, so if Keela reacts by freezing on the spot to blood, Eddie is brought in and barks if cadaver scent is present.

Stop and think about it, how many times people bleed in their homes, although wiped up the dog still would alert to it, therefore that is why Eddie can then establish if a dead body has been there.

--
Good point about how would the trainer know, but
Keela does not bark. She sits still.
Eddie always goes in first and Keela after, so no, Eddie wouldn't brought in after Keela, Keela is the blood dog, she doeang need corroboragion
Eddie is sent in first to see if a dead body is/was there, if he barks and if nothing is found, Keela is taken in to see if blood is there as forensic evidence




Yes, I just got the wrong name in my first sentence, but was right in the second, ie Keela blood dog and freezes, Eddie cadaver dog and barks. You have me confused now as to which goes in first, I thought it was Keela, but you may be right, will have to look again, at video. Anyway, the point is it is a different alert to blood and cadaver, ie freezing on the spot, or barking.

I DO think the fact that Eddie can also alert to blood,has been abused by some in their btw failed attempt to assert there was no cadaver dead body scent
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 15.02.13 21:41

"We take Keela in and she will find the minutest traces of blood," Mr Ellis said. "It's not like looking for a needle in a haystack any more. The other two dogs will find the haystack and Keela will find the needle."
 
That is from a Times report

Eddie definitely goes in first as he is the cadaver dog and that is what he is used for, to look for the scent of death in missing people cases, he is not a blood dog like Keela, who is only used to find blood to increase the intelligence.

Doesnt matter CF does it? Eddie found the scent of death in that apartment. And it wasnt a coconut shell either
big grin

Dumbos

BTW Eddie barks even if he found blood,that was his method of communicating, cos hes a thorough dog, or WAS, rip x



Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 15.02.13 22:03

No, don't think thats right IF, as I said different alerts to blood and cadaver. Bark for death scent, freeze for blood, that is my interpretation. Both dogs would be trained the same alert for blood, i.e. both Eddie and Keela freeze at blood, but Eddie barks on scent of death, otherwise how would you or trainer know what Eddie was alerting too. It's got nothing to do with his method of communicating, he's a dog, he is trained how to alert to how the handler teaches him, not how he wants to communicate.

Here is the video, for newcomers, watch how Eddie barks , and Keela freezes with her nose down to the ground.



[youtube][/youtube]
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Mirage on 15.02.13 22:20

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Finn wrote:In the book Kate says they all gathered on Madeleine's bed for a bed time story, there were only 4 hairs found on the bed, one was Kate's, one was unidentified and 2 had no roots.

And on the floor by the bed 18 were unidentified and had no roots.

If someone has their hair tied up it might explain why. I don't know if the cleaner had long hair but Rachel and Jane did.

As did Cat Nanny and Charlotte Pennington.

If the apartment had been cleaned to the extent that all evidence of the children being there had been removed how did they miss the 8 hairs belonging to the Gordons?

But yet the cleaner verifies that the McCanns slept in the room with the balcony and that all beds had been slept in except for the spare bed in the children's bedroom.

Charlotte Pennington was never in the flat and Jane wasnt probs Rachel wasnt either

As for the twins, their dnA had been sampled and cross referenced by end June not mid july as you said

Found no referenxe to Gordon hair in 5a either

Probs cross wired

IF - I've just seen your post viz: "Charlotte Pennington was never in the flat"

I recall reading about Charlotte Pennington very recently and have dug out the following conflicting statements in the McCann files:-

Statement to the PJ, 7th May 2007:

She did not enter the residence in question;


Daily Mail interview on 25th Sept 2007:

Talking from her mother's home in Leatherhead, Surrey, she told the Daily Mail: "I was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone. When we were coming out we saw Kate and she was screaming: 'They've taken her, they've taken her!'

18th Oct 2007 - Transcript of Dispatches programme:

'I went straight to the apartment. I sort of walked in, did a quick scan around and been told 'No, no. She's not here, she's not here'.
AND:

She also says: "There were no children in the room. The twins had been taken out already, I think by one of the McCanns' friends."

Remember, Pennington ''was in the apartment less than five minutes after they found that Madeleine had gone.''

So where were the twins?

By 10:50pm, we know the twins were back in their cots as the first local GNR police officers attending the scene remarked on how strange it was that the twins did not wake during all the commotion and screaming.

So, it begs the question: Why were the twins not there when Pennington arrived in the apartment?

If Pennington's statement is correct, then it leaves three possible scenarios:

1) The twins were moved out of the apartment, in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, and then returned to their cots later. If so, why were they removed? And where did they go and who moved them?

2) The twins were moved prior to Kate's alarm call, perhaps because they wanted to clean the bedroom and were then returned to the McCanns' apartment before the GNR arrived? If this were true, where did they go and who moved them?

3) The twins were never put to bed in the McCanns' apartment that night. They either regularly slept elsewhere on the holiday or they slept elsewhere on that particular night and were transferred back before the GNR arrived. But why would they be sleeping elsewhere? And again, where did they go and who moved them?

If the twins were not in the apartment, this would certainly explain Kate's decision to run back to the tapas restaurant, apparently abandoning the twins alone in the unlocked apartment.

However, if Pennington's statement is correct, and we are to believe the twins were moved in this way, then it would now seem even more extraordinary that the twins did not wake.

And the implication of that appears to be obvious.

____________

IIRC Charlotte Pennington was invited to Rothley post Sept 2007.
After that she ended up in New Zealand!!!
Last heard of, she was acting in a TV soap! As opposed to a real-life one, that is.

Mirage

Posts : 1904
Reputation : 757
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 15.02.13 22:36

candyfloss wrote:No, don't think thats right IF, as I said different alerts to blood and cadaver. Bark for death scent, freeze for blood, that is my interpretation. Both dogs would be trained the same alert for blood, i.e. both Eddie and Keela freeze at blood, but Eddie barks on scent of death, otherwise how would you or trainer know what Eddie was alerting too. It's got nothing to do with his method of communicating, he's a dog, he is trained how to alert to how the handler teaches him, not how he wants to communicate.

Here is the video, for newcomers, watch how Eddie barks , and Keela freezes with her nose down to the ground.



[youtube][/youtube]

We will have to agree to disagree here, nowhere is shown that eddie freezes when he has found blood, And nowhere does mr grime says he does

As I said it doesnt matter as its a fact that Eddie alerted to a dead body

Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Ribisl on 15.02.13 23:41

candyfloss wrote:

I gave the link a while ago re this in bold. Different signals for blood and cadaver scent. Blood and the dog sits still and does not move ie freezes, cadaver scent and Keela barks. It is in the PJ files. Otherwise how else would the trainer know what they are reacting to. They are trained to respond in a different manner to blood and cadaver, although Keela is mainly a blood dog, and Eddie blood and cadaver, so if Keela reacts by freezing on the spot to blood, Eddie is brought in and barks if cadaver scent is present.

Stop and think about it, how many times people bleed in their homes, although wiped up the dog still would alert to it, therefore that is why Eddie can then establish if a dead body has been there.

There has been a lot of misinformation reported in the media over the years (including what's quoted in mccannfiles), but I believe Eddie and Keela were trained differently.

Keela was personally trained by Martin Grime to recognise human blood and her training programme involved her to ignore decomposing body materials other than human blood. Instead of barking when she smells blood, she gives a 'passive' alert ie freezing with her nose as near to the subject matter as possible without touching, to enable scientists to recover the sample quickly and efficiently.

Eddie, on the other hand, was a body recovery dog who had been trained to alert to human remains including body fluids. Her method of alerting the handler was by barking.

I think Eddie was the first on the scene to detect traces of dead body, then Keela was brought in to pinpoint areas for signs of human blood.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Leafylane on 15.02.13 23:58

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
candyfloss wrote:No, don't think thats right IF, as I said different alerts to blood and cadaver. Bark for death scent, freeze for blood, that is my interpretation. Both dogs would be trained the same alert for blood, i.e. both Eddie and Keela freeze at blood, but Eddie barks on scent of death, otherwise how would you or trainer know what Eddie was alerting too. It's got nothing to do with his method of communicating, he's a dog, he is trained how to alert to how the handler teaches him, not how he wants to communicate.

Here is the video, for newcomers, watch how Eddie barks , and Keela freezes with her nose down to the ground.



[youtube][/youtube]

We will have to agree to disagree here, nowhere is shown that eddie freezes when he has found blood, And nowhere does mr grime says he does

As I said it doesnt matter as its a fact that Eddie alerted to a dead body

Eddie was trained to bark when he detected cadaverscent or bodily fluids/blood from a dead or living person. He was not trained to freeze. Keela was trained to freeze exclusively to blood - again from a dead or living person. She was not trained to bark.

I'm afraid without a body to prove it - it isn't a fact that if Eddie barked that meant a cadaver had definitely been at that spot. It could be -but not necessarily. He could be alerting to body parts(i.e.nail parts etc) or bodily fluids from a living person. Or he could be alerting to cadaverscent from a dead person who had died many years previously - in the same way that Keela could detect the scent of blood which had been deposited over 40 years ago. Unfortunately the dogs could not convey how old the deposits were or as in Eddie's case exactly what it was he was alerting to. This why their handler states that there must be physical evidence to verify the alerts.

As regards the dogs alerting continuously. Just like sheep dogs, sniffer dogs only 'work' when they are on duty, i.e. when their handler instructs them to 'seek'. The rest of the time they are no different to any other dogs.

Leafylane

Posts : 19
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Inspectorfrost on 16.02.13 8:17

He could be alerting to body parts(i.e.nail parts etc) or bodily fluids from a living person. Or he could be alerting to cadaverscent from a dead person who had died many years previously

-----
Leafy
So you don't think it's a little coincidental that Eddie only alerted to the last place a missing person was seen and no where else, like no one else left nail clippings on the floor e.g. Or some other bodily fluid you refer to. Eddie was trained to detect the scent of dead bodies, why would he be alerting to fluids from living people, what are these fluids you talk of? And why were they abscent everywhere except for flat 5a

PS The PJ established no one had ever died in the flat. In other words the cadaver dog alerts are at the very least justifiable suspicion in the circumstances.


Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-12-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by bobbin on 16.02.13 8:29

@Leafylane wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
candyfloss wrote:No,
don't think thats right IF, as I said different alerts to blood and
cadaver. Bark for death scent, freeze for blood, that is my
interpretation. Both dogs would be trained the same alert for blood,
i.e. both Eddie and Keela freeze at blood, but Eddie barks on scent of
death, otherwise how would you or trainer know what Eddie was alerting
too. It's got nothing to do with his method of communicating, he's a
dog, he is trained how to alert to how the handler teaches him, not how
he wants to communicate.

Here is the video, for newcomers, watch how Eddie barks , and Keela freezes with her nose down to the ground.



[youtube][/youtube]

We
will have to agree to disagree here, nowhere is shown that eddie
freezes when he has found blood, And nowhere does mr grime says he does

As I said it doesnt matter as its a fact that Eddie alerted to a dead body

Eddie was trained to bark when he detected cadaverscent or bodily fluids/blood from a dead or living person. He was not trained to freeze. Keela was trained to freeze exclusively to blood - again from a dead or living person. She was not trained to bark.

I'm
afraid without a body to prove it - it isn't a fact that if Eddie
barked that meant a cadaver had definitely been at that spot. It could
be -but not necessarily. He could be alerting to body parts(i.e.nail parts etc) or bodily fluids from a living person.
Or he could be alerting to cadaverscent from a dead person who had died
many years previously - in the same way that Keela could detect the
scent of blood which had been deposited over 40 years ago.
Unfortunately the dogs could not convey how old the deposits were or as
in Eddie's case exactly what it was he was alerting to. This why their
handler states that there must be physical evidence to verify the
alerts.

As regards the dogs alerting continuously. Just like
sheep dogs, sniffer dogs only 'work' when they are on duty, i.e. when
their handler instructs them to 'seek'. The rest of the time they are
no different to any other dogs.

This is incorrect and misleading
The whole point of these dogs is their ability to detect DEAD material.
When tissue is deprived of its 'living nutrient supply' chemical
reactions start to occur which create chemical compounds which are
determinants of a state of death.
Nail clippings removed before death has occurred will not contain these chemical traces.
These chemical traces have odours which the specialised, trained dogs can detect and react to.
Eddie and Keela have been used in crime detection circumstances with a 100% success rate.
The dogs reacted to only McCann items and apartment / car etc.
If they reacted to living tissues then the dogs would be in a perpetual state of barking and freezing.
They would be alerting to everyone and everything in the apartment, that
the 'living' had touched, at the people and everything outside the
apartment, at everyone and everything that any living person touched
anywhere.
Gerry is TERRIFIED that the dogs should be credited.
He and his camp have been trying, humiliatingly so, to prove the dogs wrong and he has shot himself in the foot quoting a case of failure, which turned out to be success for the dogs' once again.
In all their crime detection activities they have been 100% correct.

bobbin

Posts : 2052
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Leafylane on 16.02.13 9:45

In reply to Bobbin

Quote from Martin Grime

Q. The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver?

A. The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours. No trained dog will recognize the smell of fresh blood. What they find and give the alerts for is dried blood from a live human being.


End Quote.

Actually it is misleading to call Eddie a cadaver dog as that was only part of his overall function. He was a Victim Recovery dog not a Dead Victims Only Recovery dog.

Leafylane

Posts : 19
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by Guest on 16.02.13 9:54

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
Charlotte Pennington was never in the flat and Jane wasnt probs Rachel wasnt either

You may well have a point here, but I find it very interesting to note why the hair samples were so different around the bed.The fact is someone left the hairs. I'm just thinking about possibilities out loud.

As for the twins, their dnA had been sampled and cross referenced by end June not mid july as you said

Can you point me to where you see this in the files? It's a very interesting observation.

Found no referenxe to Gordon hair in 5a either



We know the saliva was matched to Charlie Gordon, above is where it also matches hairs to the same DNA, type L

Probs cross wired
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 5A Forensics taken 04/05/07

Post by sami on 16.02.13 10:24

@Leafylane wrote:
@Inspectorfrost wrote:
candyfloss wrote:No, don't think thats right IF, as I said different alerts to blood and cadaver. Bark for death scent, freeze for blood, that is my interpretation. Both dogs would be trained the same alert for blood, i.e. both Eddie and Keela freeze at blood, but Eddie barks on scent of death, otherwise how would you or trainer know what Eddie was alerting too. It's got nothing to do with his method of communicating, he's a dog, he is trained how to alert to how the handler teaches him, not how he wants to communicate.

Here is the video, for newcomers, watch how Eddie barks , and Keela freezes with her nose down to the ground.



[youtube][/youtube]

We will have to agree to disagree here, nowhere is shown that eddie freezes when he has found blood, And nowhere does mr grime says he does

As I said it doesnt matter as its a fact that Eddie alerted to a dead body

Eddie was trained to bark when he detected cadaverscent or bodily fluids/blood from a dead or living person. He was not trained to freeze. Keela was trained to freeze exclusively to blood - again from a dead or living person. She was not trained to bark.

I'm afraid without a body to prove it - it isn't a fact that if Eddie barked that meant a cadaver had definitely been at that spot. It could be -but not necessarily. He could be alerting to body parts(i.e.nail parts etc) or bodily fluids from a living person. Or he could be alerting to cadaverscent from a dead person who had died many years previously - in the same way that Keela could detect the scent of blood which had been deposited over 40 years ago. Unfortunately the dogs could not convey how old the deposits were or as in Eddie's case exactly what it was he was alerting to. This why their handler states that there must be physical evidence to verify the alerts.

As regards the dogs alerting continuously. Just like sheep dogs, sniffer dogs only 'work' when they are on duty, i.e. when their handler instructs them to 'seek'. The rest of the time they are no different to any other dogs.

The dogs are trained to specifically NOT to bark during their every day lives. A knock at the door, postman etc., they do not bark. So they are different to other dogs in that respect.

Neither are they trained using "treats" as rewards for making a discovery, therefore they do not alert in the hope of being rewarded, they do not know what this is.

EVRD's are applauded and believed the world over. In this instance it is easy to discredit them given the lack of physical cadaver evidence, yet. The saying "every dog has its day" is apt in these circumstances. Until such time as team McCann can categorically prove otherwise, I believe in the dogs and their capabilities. They have never said it was Madeleine, her parents quickly assumed this and tried to make excuses. The dogs have alerted and statistically they have been proven to be correct. So somebody has died and Madeleine is missing. It is up to the humans to sort the rest out. The dogs job is done, and well done.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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