''Looking for a missing body''

I've commented on this before but it's worth another look as it's so relevant-


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

1.48 onwards but especially at 2.15 onwards when Dr Gerry McCann talks about searches being directed to find 'a missing body'.

You could search for a missing child.

You could search for a body.

I don't remember hearing of anyone conducting searches for a 'missing body ' though...

Hmmm...not a missing child but a missing body....very telling !

He knew exactly what happened to Madeleine - that Madeleine is dead.

What a slip up and no journalist noticed.

They slip up all the time, Aiyoyo.
That's when the brain, with real memory, takes over and makes you use maybe one single word you were trying to avoid, which tells it all.

If we can do this kind of analysis, don't tell me 37 NSY homicide detectives and various experienced PJ teams hadn't noticed ...

bumping this in the light of Goncalo Amaral's interview in C de M today!

Not just a missing body but a body which was quickly removed from 5a:

From kate's book where she talks about the cadaver odour the CSI dog found in 5a:

PeterMac wrote:


p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.

But bizarrely she also said
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.

Has she in fact inadvertently told the world the truth.
The book was passed by lawyers and proof readers, but they let this clear ADMISSION Through. Why ?
Unquote

anyone else making statements such as these would at the very least been taken in for requestioning and would have probably faced charges of some kind .

yet 7 years down the line here we are watching them on court steps angered at a libel trial against the police officer in charge of the investigation into their missing daughter being postponed WHY ?

The phrase 'can't see the wood for the trees ' springs to mind !

GM wrote:"..the searches haven't found any evidence to show that Madeleine has been seriously injured..."

Slipped up there Gerry.

How would that search produce evidence of serious injury?

Death yes... but injury?

The subconscious is an amazing thing.

Makes you think of another word... "resuscitation".

Yes, quite, what 'evidence' of serious injury could there be?

PeterMac wrote:

worriedmum wrote:I've commented on this before but it's worth another look as it's so relevant-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1.48 onwards but especially at 2.15 onwards when Dr Gerry McCann talks about searches being directed to find 'a missing body'.
You could search for a missing child.
You could search for a body.
I don't remember hearing of anyone conducting searches for a 'missing body ' though...

"As in - I had a body, it was in a blue bag, but I put it down and someone has nicked it."

Haha, I look forward to your posts PM, always insightful and very entertaining  

worriedmum wrote:Yes, quite, what 'evidence' of serious injury could there be?

It is another fascinating "slip of the tongue' or Brain leakage as Hobs might call it in more modern useage.

If you find an entire body, the clearly the person is dead.
If you find half a body then clearly the whole person is dead
If you find a Femur- for example - then you can calculate that, on balance, in the absence of heroic specialised surgery - for which there is no evidence anywhere - that the whole person is dead.
If you find small body parts - then it depends what yo find !
A Jaw !
A vertebrum
A rib,
and so on all give a significant answer
A finger, however, or an ear. . . .

So precisely WHAT is a doctor, a Consultant of many years standing, referring to when he talks of finding "evidence of serious injury" which does not amount to evidence of death ? ?

They are talking off script.
Their lawyers and spokes-things must be pulling their hair out.

PeterMac wrote:They are talking off script.
Their lawyers and spokes-things must be pulling their hair out.

That's why - from the start - the Government sent media handlers as a priority in this missing body case.

They usually have someone speaking for them or off camera making sure everything is OK.

Yesterday was a rare uncontrolled event.

If they ever got questioned in court  it would be interesting to say the least.

BlueBag wrote:

PeterMac wrote:They are talking off script.
Their lawyers and spokes-things must be pulling their hair out.

That's why - from the start - the Government sent media handlers as a priority in this missing body case.

They usually have someone speaking for them or off camera making sure everything is OK.

Yesterday was a rare uncontrolled event.

If they ever got questioned in court  it would be interesting to say the least.

There will never be a body found if it was cremated as has been alluded to. It seems that it was the most sensible option for them

Interesting to put this quote with another of Gerry's, from the Vanity Fair interview..

''At the time we did it, it was not irresponsible!” Gerry snaps. It is the one subject on which he is quite defensive, arguing first one way, then conceding the opposite: “Of course we feel guilty about not having been there, and that is just something we have to deal with for the rest of our lives. You are not asking anything we don’t think about on a daily basis. We live this 24 hours a day.” His lips twist as he struggles for composure. “But I can’t talk to you about the details of what happened. I live under threat from the Portuguese—if I do talk—of two years’ imprisonment.” He smiles grimly. “It seems to be the same sentence as disposing of a child’s body.”

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

worriedmum wrote:I've commented on this before but it's worth another look as it's so relevant-


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

1.48 onwards but especially at 2.15 onwards when Dr Gerry McCann talks about searches being directed to find 'a missing body'.

You could search for a missing child.

You could search for a body.

I don't remember hearing of anyone conducting searches for a 'missing body ' though...

Where has this video gone?

worriedmum wrote:

worriedmum wrote:I've commented on this before but it's worth another look as it's so relevant-


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

1.48 onwards but especially at 2.15 onwards when Dr Gerry McCann talks about searches being directed to find 'a missing body'.

You could search for a missing child.

You could search for a body.

I don't remember hearing of anyone conducting searches for a 'missing body ' though...

Where has this video gone?

Bumping this because I'm concerned that this video has been whooshed. Has any one else got a copy of it?
If I remember correctly, Gerry is being interviewed and talks about the searches being conducted' for a missing BODY'.

worriedmum wrote:Bumping this because I'm concerned that this video has been whooshed. Has any one else got a copy of it?If I remember correctly, Gerry is being interviewed and talks about the searches being conducted' for a missing BODY'

I venture to suggest if anyone has cached the video, or part thereof, it will be HiDeHo.

Do you have any idea where and/or when the interview took place?  It would make it easier to trace - if it exists of course.

tigger wrote:Not just a missing body but a body which was quickly removed from 5a:

From kate's book where she talks about the cadaver odour the CSI dog found in 5a:

PeterMac wrote:


p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to find. It was simply wrong.

But bizarrely she also said
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.

Has she in fact inadvertently told the world the truth.
The book was passed by lawyers and proof readers, but they let this clear ADMISSION Through. Why ?
Unquote

That In Red ^^^^^^.....Ahhhh all in her own words...... ? 

I wonder if there will be a sequel ?

Martin Grime
UK NPIA Registered Subject Matter Expert
FBI Forensic Canine Program Specialist Adviser


OPERATION TASK


Personal profile


I am an U.K.A.C.P.O. accredited police dog training instructor in post at the Operational Support Services. I am a Subject Matter Expert registered with N.C.P.E. and specialist homicide canine search advisor. In support of the national Homicide Search Advisor, Mark Harrison, I advise Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the operational deployment of Police Dogs in the role of Homicide investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training.

I am a Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.

I am regularly deployed to assist in high profile homicide cases within my portfolio and form a 'Specialist Canine Homicide Search Team' including the S.A.M dog teams from Dyfed Powys.

My core role includes the training and operational handling of specialist search dogs in the fields of Human Victim Recovery and Forensic Crime Scene Investigation.

I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs. 'Eddie' is a 7-year old English Springer spaniel dog. 'Keela' is a three-year old English Springer spaniel pregnant dog. I also have a six-month old English Springer spaniel dog, puppy, in training, 'Morse' .



Search Asset Profile

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the asset is conducted using pig as the subject matter for solid hides and human blood for fluid. The use of human remains for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time.

The dog has however considerable experience in operational recovery of human remains and evidential forensic material and has trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog involves the use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact.

The E.V.R.D. will locate cadaver, whether in the whole or parts thereof; deposited surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 3-4 feet shortly after death to the advanced stages of deposition and putrefaction through to skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if large quantities of accelerant have been involved.

The dog will locate human cadaver in water either from the bank side or when deployed in a boat where a large area may be covered using a gridding system.

The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. This may be completed by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent samples being taken on sterile gauze pads and the scent check being completed by scent discrimination exercise at a suitable venue.

The dog will alert to the presence of 'dead body' scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the exhaust of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where controls may be included to increase assurity.

I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit. The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through
ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.

The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.

Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

Operational use of the ST100 is in a developmental stage.

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.

She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.

In training she has accurately located minute samples of blood on property up to thiry-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime.

The assets may be deployed upon request of a Senior Investigating Oficer (S.I.O.) following consultation with the appropriate S.M.E.'s and advisors.

The project team makes decisions on suitability for case deployment. Due to the very nature of the dog's presence, cross contamination and preservation of vital evidence at crime scenes must be considered prior to any deployment in consultation with the senior crime scene coordinator.

Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed mutually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are the only assets of their type in the world. Training records are maintained and are available if required.

POINTS TO ASSIST

Whilst it is stated that the E.V.RD. is originally trained using pig the following notes of guidance should be considered when assessing indications:

P In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never alerted to meat based foodstuffs.

> The dog has never alerted to 'road kill'

P Alerts given by the dog where no obvious human remains are found are supported by forensic evidence / anecdotal witness accounts.

> The dog, a scavenger, uses its olfactory system to locate food sources, identify its young and other pack members, enemies and predators over large distances. It can track its prey identifying a direction of travel. This entails the dog being able to discriminate the time difference between footsteps using the sense of smell !

> The dog is an animal that's basic function in the wild is to scavenge food and procreate.

> In a domestic environment it responds to humans as a food source and bonds in the manner it would with other pack members.

> The reward of food and protection / close comfort provides the basis for a system to be adopted where the dog shows a willingness to respond in response to the reward. We are thereby able to 'train' the dog using conditioned responses to stimuli. Repetition and reward then ensure efficiency. Positive and negative reinforcement then shape the required behaviour in their role.

P Pavlov's theory is used in the case of the E.V.RD. system of alert. He has been 'conditioned' to give a verbal alert when coming into contact with 'dead body scent'. The presence of tangible material is not required to produce the response.

> Although the dog is 'trained' using reward based methods the behaviour shaping and enforcement regime produces an asset that does not false alert unlike electronic devices.

> Pseudo scent is a chemically produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some trainers have had limited success when tested on my dogs they showed no interest.

> Operational finds backed by forensic corroboration have shown that the system adopted by me in the training of the dogs is both effective and efficient.

Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced pig based products into training assessments 100% of the animals alerted to the medium.

> The result from scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.

That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.

> The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile compounds" that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

> 'Dead body scent' cannot be removed by cleaning. The compounds adhere to surfaces. The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog's olfactory system is able to separate odour and identify specific compounds' and mixes to cellular level. A similar system would be a device similar to an electron microscope.

> In training the dog has accurately alerted to a 1 cm cube of pork soaked in petrol for 1 week and then burnt until only a residue remains.

>The dog's olfactory system is so highly developed that it continues to be efficient at cellular level:

Distinguish the time difference between footprints to give a direction of travel.

Distinguish live from dead within minutes.

Distinguish human blood from other species where the chemical constituent parts are identical.

Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.

> Scientists accept that there is no forensic testing equipment as discriminatory as the dogs olfactory system at this present moment in time.

>All research and training of the dogs within this program is completed in conjunction with a team of scientists for differing fields of expertise. They have in the past and will continue to endorse the dogs used within the field of homicide investigations.

[Acknowledgement:   themaddiecasefiles.com]

Science & Environment  

Does the UK need a human 'body farm'?

By Prof Sarah Gabbott Science writer - 7th September 2017

> Body farm advocates point out the benefits of such facilities, including training dogs to sniff out dead bodies, recognising facial features and ancestry after decay, and even helping to work out how fingerprints change and whether DNA can be recovered after varying intervals of decomposition. <


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