Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Sunny]

a rug that is buried with the body would also contaminate the soil around it....cadaverine would be entombed underground with nowhere to escape...trapped...unlike an open apartment. The rug would also be heavily contaminated over many months  in contact with a cadaver...quite different

I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?

[Mr Gray]

I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?

you can do what you like im not bothered.....a decaying body wrapped in a carpet for four moths...and buried...may well have been cadaver tissue attached to the carpet....it then wouldnt even be remnant  scent

[misty]

I think you miss the point. The dogs alerted to remnant odour, there was no body. Do you expect me to find an exact scenario of what happened in 5a?

Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?

[Sunny]

Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?

No I trust Martin Grime, he said

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

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

By the way I wasn't far off with my Eddie not alerting to bacon butties post I see.

The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.

[G-Unit]

What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?

Does washing remove the scent?
Is it a fact that a contaminated piece of clothing will contaminate another piece of clothing stored nearby?
 

[misty]

Does washing remove the scent?
Is it a fact that a contaminated piece of clothing will contaminate another piece of clothing stored nearby?

That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?

[Robittybob1]

No I trust Martin Grime, he said

FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

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

By the way I wasn't far off with my Eddie not alerting to bacon butties post I see.

The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.

How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"

[Robittybob1]

How does that answer the question posed by Misty?
Misty asked "Do you now understand the potential significance of Eddie's nose pointed at the bottom of the sofa before his alert?"

Misty - What was the answer to your question?

[Robittybob1]

That depends on how light the scent is. Do you have to use a special detergent to launder your clothes after you've visited a deceased person in the chapel of rest or morgue?
If clothes smell of smoke & they are hung next to other clothes does the smell not transfer at all?

There are lots of myths about cadaver odour being unable to be removed but I'm sure it can be removed by washing.
But I do admit a cadaver odour can permeate a person's skin.  As a vet I used to have to work on decomposed calves still inside the dam and the odour would be noticeable for at least a week afterwards no matter how much soap was used.  But it never lasted forever.

[misty]

Misty - What was the answer to your question?

Remnant cadaver odour was far more likely to have been absorbed by the fabric sofa & remained detectable 3 months later than on a hard floor which should have been cleaned before the subsequent guests arrived after the place was cleared to re-let. IMO.

[Brietta]

There are lots of myths about cadaver odour being unable to be removed but I'm sure it can be removed by washing.
But I do admit a cadaver odour can permeate a person's skin.  As a vet I used to have to work on decomposed calves still inside the dam and the odour would be noticeable for at least a week afterwards no matter how much soap was used.  But it never lasted forever.

[Robittybob1]

Remnant cadaver odour was far more likely to have been absorbed by the fabric sofa & remained detectable 3 months later than on a hard floor which should have been cleaned before the subsequent guests arrived after the place was cleared to re-let. IMO.

OK that is your view.  There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot.  Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch?  But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?

[Robittybob1]

I wonder if that stuff will defeat a cadaver dog? 

[Brietta]

OK that is your view.  There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot.  Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch?  But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?

In my opinion it would not.  There wouldn't be the slightest surprise in finding Madeleine's DNA anywhere in the apartment.

[misty]

OK that is your view.  There is no test for remnant cadaver odour, there is only a test for DNA and to know where to swab they relied on Keela identifying a spot.  Did you say Keels never sniffed the end of the couch?  But if Madeleine's DNA was found on the couch would that prove anything?

On the part of the video available to the public I cannot see that Keela is given the opportunity to screen the sofa. Neither is there any mention Keela indicated to the stains on the back of the sofa. Much would depend on the amount of any recoverable forensics to determine if it was consistent with evidence of a crime against Madeleine but the opportunity was lost.