UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ferryman on July 27, 2013, 09:51:31 PM
-
Aside from Portugal, is there any judiciary where reconstructions are used to determine guilt or innocence?
I'm fairly certain that if the family of Peter Voisey's victim had been reliant on a reconstruction to 'prove their innocence' at least someone from the family would have gone down ...
-
Aside from Portugal, is there any judiciary where reconstructions are used to determine guilt or innocence?
I'm fairly certain that if the family of Peter Voisey's victim had been reliant on a reconstruction to 'prove their innocence' at least someone from the family would have gone down ...
I think most countries have trials by jury, it's just Portugal that decides by reconstruction.
-
This is ignorant nonsense.
A reconstruction is part of the process of finding out how a crime could have occurred.
The decision not to take part is one for people to draw inference from.
The idea that Portugal or any other Country decide guilt on it is beyond stupidity.
But why wouldn't they take part?
I knew that they wouldn't the minute it was suggested.
The answer is that it would expose the timeline to utter ridicule.
I don't know what happened to MM.
But I know that the TRUTH has not been told......
Those dogs are so brilliant though. They really are. Wait and see.
-
This is ignorant nonsense.
A reconstruction is part of the process of finding out how a crime could have occurred.
The decision not to take part is one for people to draw inference from.
The idea that Portugal or any other Country decide guilt on it is beyond stupidity.
But why wouldn't they take part?
I knew that they wouldn't the minute it was suggested.
The answer is that it would expose the timeline to utter ridicule.
I don't know what happened to MM.
But I know that the TRUTH has not been told......
Those dogs are so brilliant though. They really are. Wait and see.
What are we waiting for from the dogs? It's been 6 years now.
-
This is ignorant nonsense.
A reconstruction is part of the process of finding out how a crime could have occurred.
The decision not to take part is one for people to draw inference from.
The idea that Portugal or any other Country decide guilt on it is beyond stupidity.
But why wouldn't they take part?
I knew that they wouldn't the minute it was suggested.
The answer is that it would expose the timeline to utter ridicule.
I don't know what happened to MM.
But I know that the TRUTH has not been told......
Those dogs are so brilliant though. They really are. Wait and see.
The idea that Portugal or any other Country decide guilt on it is beyond stupidity.
Then what's the point of it?
Portuguese secrecy laws preclude the more usual reasons for carrying out reconstructions, to generate new leads or prompt memories of possible witnesses to come forward and assist with the enquiry.
In Portugal a reconstruction is all behind closed doors ...
-
What are we waiting for from the dogs? It's been 6 years now.
If we are waiting to hear
whose scent was detected :-
or
how long ago it was deposited (weeks or years)
or
whether it was a scent left by contact with dead tissue from a living person, or a cadaver,
or
whether it had been deposited by a dead body or by innocent cross contamination from an unrelated source
....... then I suspect we shall be waiting a long time. As it has not been possible to establish the answers to the above - and therefore the alerts cannot be regarded as proof that anyone - let alone Madeleine died in 5A.
-
If we are waiting to hear
whose scent was detected :-
or
how long ago it was deposited (weeks or years)
or
whether it was a scent left by contact with dead tissue from a living person, or a cadaver,
or
whether it had been deposited by a dead body or by innocent cross contamination from an unrelated source
....... then I suspect we shall be waiting a long time. As it has not been possible to establish the answers to the above - and therefore the alerts cannot be regarded as proof that anyone - let alone Madeleine died in 5A.
Spot on. I think a heck of a lot of damage was caused by the "Scent of Death" headlines in the press. I suspect many people would have read that and still have the "Eddie barked so there must have been a corpse" notion.
-
If we are waiting to hear
whose scent was detected :-
or
how long ago it was deposited (weeks or years)
or
whether it was a scent left by with dead tissue from a living person, or a cadaver,
or
whether it had been deposited by a dead body or by innocent cross contamination from an unrelated source
....... then I suspect we shall be waiting a long time. As it has not been possible to establish the answers to the above - and therefore the alerts cannot be regarded as proof that anyone - let alone Madeleine died in 5A.
And other possible reasons for apparent 'alerts'?
Don't mention the coconut shell .....
-
And other possible reasons for apparent 'alerts'?
Don't mention the coconut shell .....
Can you provide evidence of a scientific report which states categorically it was a coconut shell found in Jersey?
Come back to me with your evidence and then i'll cite my evidence that it was not a coconut shell.
-
Can you provide evidence of a scientific report which states categorically it was a coconut shell found in Jersey?
Come back to me with your evidence and then i'll cite my evidence that it was not a coconut shell.
Completely from memory - so I'm not claiming this is correct, but didn't the professor who at first thought it may have been bone, later change her mind because of the rate of deterioration - which did not tally with the rate of bone deterioration.
-
Completely from memory - so I'm not claiming this is correct, but didn't the professor who at first thought it may have been bone, later change her mind because of the rate of deterioration - which did not tally with the rate of bone deterioration.
Right then, so no evidence, other than forum myth?
Ok, have a look here:
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/jar6.html
“23 February 2008
09.10 hrs
Examined JAR/6. Recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating*.”
Diane Simon, Mick Gradwell, and David Warcup have all said that I was told the next day that the context of the area I found pre-dated the enquiry. This is simply not true. The fragment was found under the stairs in Trench 3. Anyone who thinks that the inch by inch, painstaking, search conducted on their knees by the Archaeologists and Anthropologists took only one day knows nothing about this sort of work. Page 2 of the Anthropologists worksheet shows that they were still working on Trench 3 on 6th March and were still working under the stairs on 20th March. It was sometime around then that the work on this context was completed and we were told that the context meant the fragment was probably too old to be important to the enquiry. We then immediately ruled it out of our enquiry. Further confirmation of this is given on Page 16 of the Worksheet when the Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the entry reproduced below. This entry was made on 9th April and refers to the 8th April. Note what she says in the entry because it totally contradicts what Gradwell, Warcup, and Simon say. For instance, where she says “now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed,”. This would certainly seem to contradict the information given to the media by Gradwell and Warcup that it had been completed as early as the 24 February.
“9 April 2008
On 8 April 2008 I read the C14 dating results relating to JAR/6. The report stated that the fragment was too degraded to obtain a date. The fragment can however be dated by archaeological context now that the phasing of the area under the stairs has been completed. JAR/6 was found in Context 003, Trench 3. This Context is thought to belong to the earliest phase of the building, phase 1, which has been dated to the Victorian period. It certainly predates the 1940’s aggregate 008.
On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”
So on the 9th of April 2008 Anthropologist Julie Roberts made the above entry.
Right, now David Rose in his article reproduced by Rooney says
On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'
So we have email evidence to counter the above
Now there is this email exchange that could answer the question
On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
SO NOW FOR THE COCNUT
Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
So has a Whole historic Child Abuse investigation been trashed because "The Technician said it looked liked a COCONUT HUSK" just crazy
I would like to say a very big thanks to Spartacus & Rooney for bringing this up. I never new where the term came from now im SHOCKED
This is from Lenny Harper
The above is only part of the information that I was given by the Anthropologists. It gives a vastly different picture to that supplied by Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup and so enthusiastically promoted by Ms. Simon. These entries, made at the time by the Anthropologists, make it clear, that not only did they believe that they were finding human bones, but that the bones had been deposited there fairly recently, in some cases as recently as the 1960’s onwards. Reading the above, could anyone say that the dig at HDLG was a waste of time and money? Where do they get the conclusion that only one human bone was found? More puzzling perhaps, how can Mr. Gradwell or Mr. Warcup claim that I should not have authorised the search at HDLG? The problem was not identifying the bones as human – the expert Anthropologists did that very well. The problem was the contradictions in the carbon dating process which is not that reliable. When we questioned the company who pioneered the process we used they told us that they had taken a live fish out of the sea and carbon dated it several days later. The process told them the fish was thousands of years old. Our Anthropologist told us a similar story about a baby found dead in a house. Although they knew the baby had only been dead since the 1970s, the carbon dating gave a vastly different date. The carbon dating was at odds with the respected expert in the UK who said the bones were only a few decades old. Who was correct? More importantly, why did Mr. Gradwell and Mr. Warcup make no mention of all of this and why quote only selectively from the above document. The document is not being revealed here for the first time. Messrs Gradwell and Warcup quoted from it, albeit selectively, and the Sunday Times also referred to it. What it does do is completely and utterly destroy the suggestion that I exaggerated or lied about what I was told. It will make you wonder though why Mr. Gradwell should say that the dig was a waste of time and money.
-
From Lenny Harper:
On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
-
That Eddie reacted to a coconut shell is, indeed, not a forum myth.
You're slowly catching up, Albertini ...
-
That Eddie reacted to a coconut shell is, indeed, not a forum myth.
You're slowly catching up, Albertini ...
No it is a myth, there is no proof it was a coconut shell.
You haven't caught up with the concept of when something IS something and when something APPEARS to be something.
I repeat there is no firm evidential proof that it was coconut.
That account was on the basis of what a tehcnician THOUGHT the piece of bone looked like, and contained no scientific evidence to support that appearance. Also the technician admitted and as i have evidenced, and indeed she stated that it could equally be bone.
The bottom line, from reading Lenny Harper's testimony and evidence was she didn't have a clue what it was.
Keep up man!
-
How police chief Lenny Harper lost the plot over the Jersey children's home 'murders'
By DAVID ROSE
UPDATED: 22:08 GMT, 15 November 2008
Comments (0)
Share
For some of the journalists assembled for a Press conference at Jersey's police headquarters last Wednesday morning, the shock was almost palpable.
Since February 23 this year, when the island's then deputy chief officer, Lenny Harper, first addressed them outside the granite walls of the Haut de la Garenne former children's home, they had been led to believe it had been a house of horror - a place where children were tortured and abused in a labyrinth of cellars, and that possibly as many as seven were murdered.
Now, a bluff, straightforward and extremely experienced Lancashire detective, Det Supt Mick Gradwell, who had taken over the investigation after Mr Harper retired in August, was telling them that most of what they had been told about Haut de la Garenne and Mr Harper's £4.5million inquiry was nonsense.
'There are no credible allegations of murder, there are no suspects for murder,' Mr Gradwell said, and neither was there a scrap of evidence that there had ever been any victims.
On the wrong track: Former Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper talking to the Press outside the Haut de la Garenne home in July
Illustrating his presentation with slides and the actual physical evidence, he went on to demolish every detail that the world had been told supported the notion that children had died in horrifying circumstances.
For example, the home's 'cellars' were not cellars at all but merely an underfloor space so low that any adult could only walk bent double, with no door or stairway leading down to it.
Metal 'restraints' were in fact an old bed spring, and a piece of wood on which someone had scrawled 'I've been bad 4 years and years' was not placed in the building until 2003 - 17 years after it ceased to be used as a children's home.
Yesterday, in an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Mr Gradwell, 48, revealed that such discoveries were continuing.
Mr Harper had publicly described a rusty piece of metal found beneath the floorboards as 'shackles', presumably used to chain children. Mr Gradwell said the metal item had just been positively identified - as a roofing gutter bracket and electric cable pin of a type used widely on Jersey's granite buildings until the Fifties.
Mr Gradwell's disclosures were already so extraordinary that some refused to accept them, claiming, without the least justification, that a man with no previous connection to the island and an impeccable record in charge of some of the biggest criminal inquiries - such as the drowning of 23 Chinese cockle pickers in Morecambe Bay in 2004 - had somehow been 'nobbled' by Jersey's rulers, and was perpetrating a cover-up.
In fact, the truth is still more shocking. The questionable aspects of Mr Harper's claims about homicides at Haut de la Garenne do not, as Mr Gradwell stressed last week, detract from the fact that there remain serious, credible allegations about the abuse of children in care in Jersey, and these must be investigated.
However, The Mail on Sunday has obtained confidential documents, including a crucial email written by Mr Harper and the official log book kept by his own forensic science team.
They show he repeatedly misled both the media and the island's government, and made a series of statements that proved to be inaccurate.
Twisted logic: The rusted metal 'restraints' found in the children's home turned out to be nothing more than an old bed spring
The Mail on Sunday's investigation has revealed that:
• On February 24, a day after Mr Harper made Haut de la Garenne an international byword for infamy by announcing his team had found the 'partial remains of a child' who might have been murdered, forensic scientists warned him that the so-called remains - allegedly a fragment of a child's skull - were so old as to be 'beyond the parameters of the investigation'.
• His chief scientist, Dr Julie Roberts, re-examined the 'skull fragment' in early April, because the country's top radiocarbon dating laboratory at Oxford University had concluded it was not bone at all.
When this newspaper published the laboratory's findings in mid-May, Mr Harper said they were irrelevant because Dr Roberts was sticking to her original conclusion, and he trusted her more than the Oxford scientists. In fact, she had changed her mind - and as the documents reveal, had personally informed Mr Harper.
• On May 2, at a time when Jersey politicians were starting to ask awkward questions about the inquiry, Mr Harper sent a personal email marked 'confidential' to Frank Walker, the island's chief minister, Wendy Kinnard, the former home affairs minister, and Bill Ogley, the chief executive.
In it he said that the previous day, May 1, he had received the results of new tests conducted on more bone fragments recently dug up at La Garenne, claiming they proved there was a second child's skull buried there.
Mr Harper wrote: 'The bone fragments are from the skull of a child, they are extremely well preserved and the expert's initial findings are that the child died fairly recently, certainly no earlier than the Fifties but probably later.
'These findings will be confirmed by carbon dating. You will realise the significance of these findings, as confirmation will mean that a homicide inquiry will have to (be) launched.'
Mr Walker said yesterday: 'The impact of that email was devastating. It seemed there was evidence that the most dreadful crimes imaginable really had been committed, and at that stage we had no reason to call Mr Harper's handling of the case into question.'
It was true that some freshly excavated bone fragments had just been tested, and The Mail on Sunday has seen the report to Mr Harper by the expert - Professor Andrew Chamberlain of Sheffield University's Centre for Human Identification.
The report stated the pieces were so small it was impossible to 'provide a confident identification (of them) as human or non-human'.
Last night Prof Chamberlain said: 'Mr Harper's email was not a fair representation of my findings. All of the stuff I looked at was too small to say what part of the skeleton it came from, and I never looked at anything that was recognisably part of a skull.'
Unlocking the truth: What were said to be 'shackles' have now been revealed to be a bracket for guttering and an old hook used to support electric cables
Later, Prof Chamberlain did manage to have these fragments carbon dated, showing that their owner had died between 1470 and 1690. But he said he still does not know what species they came from.
As for Mr Harper's email, Mr Walker said he never retracted or corrected it. But if Lenny Harper had been misleading, it wasn't for the first time.
One of the strangest aspects to this very strange saga is that Mr Harper was ever in charge of such a huge and high-profile case at all.
On the wall of his office in Jersey, Mick Gradwell displays a certificate - his formal Home Office qualification as a 'level three senior investigating officer'. It is the 'membership badge' of the crème de la crème and attaining it requires many years of CID experience in handling steadily more difficult cases, as well as attending courses and building skills on everything from the finer points of forensics to dealing with the media.
Inquiries into alleged large-scale child abuse and possible homicide are officially classed as 'category A-plus' - meaning that, on the mainland, only the very best level three officers would even be considered for running them.
Yet when Mr Harper began to look at La Garenne towards the end of last year, he had not worked as a detective for more than ten years and had nothing approaching level three experience.
'He was in way over his head,' one top UK officer said. 'I suppose that's the charitable explanation for the fiasco that followed.'
In any event, what is now clear is that the fiasco goes back to the beginning, with Mr Harper's sudden and dramatic announcement on February 23 about finding the remains of a child, along with the claim that Eddie the sniffer dog - the very same beast that had already caused the parents of Madeleine McCann months of unjustified misery by finding the 'scent of death' in their Portugal apartment - had identified six further sites where children might lie buried.
Enlarge
Harper's email saying parts of a child's skull had been found
Mr Harper claimed then, and again last week, that he was always determined to be 'transparent' with the media and that this was part of the reason why he had attracted intense hostility from parts of Jersey's 'establishment'.
Yet even in February, that transparency was limited. Mr Harper's first Press conference made a huge impact, but having been called at very short notice, it attracted only a large handful of journalists.
He repeated the exercise over the following two days and by February 25 he was speaking to an audience that included reporters from all over the world. He was honest about the purpose of attracting such vast publicity: it would, he believed, encourage victims of abuse at La Garenne and elsewhere to contact his inquiry.
Hence, perhaps, his decision not to make public a very inconvenient fact.
After they had identified the item dug up the previous day as part of a child's skull, the next job for Mr Harper's scientists, who were contracted through the well-established UK firm LGC Forensics, was to try to work out its age.
Yesterday, LGC's spokeswoman, Helen Newman, revealed that as early as February 24, the day of Mr Harper's second Press conference, 'we advised the police investigation team that it was in an archeological layer from before the Forties and, to this extent, it would appear to have been beyond the parameters of the investigation.'
In other words, if the 'skull' really belonged to a murder victim, his or her killer was bound to be dead and beyond the scope of meaningful investigation.
Ms Newman added: 'We confirmed that it related to the earliest phase of building on the site - dating back to Victorian times. This view was reported to the police investigation team on April 9.'
Back in February, LGC also advised Mr Harper that the fragment needed more physical testing. This was why it was sent to the radiocarbon lab in Oxford, where, as The Mail on Sunday reported in an article published on May 18, the laboratory discovered it was not bone at all - and had told Mr Harper's team as early as April 7. Yet this too was not made public.
Later, after our story was published, he attempted to justify this, telling one newspaper that he failed to mention the original fragment wasn't bone because to do so would have 'distracted' from his inquiry.
Even then, as the logbook recorded by the LGC scientists and kept in Mr Harper's own incident room reveals, he was being less than straightforward.
Police oversee excavations in the grounds at Haut De La Garenne
Publicly, he continued to insist that the fragment might well be bone after all and, in an interview with this newspaper, he said that the opinion of the Oxford scientists did not matter because Julie Roberts, LGC's forensic anthropologist, was still 'quite content it's human - Julie Roberts is still of the opinion that it's a piece of human skull'.
This, at best, was misleading. Dr Roberts's log for April 9 states: 'On 8 and 9 April I re-examined JAR/6 (the fragment) ... It had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight.
'These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definitive conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis.
'I reported my findings to Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed.'
Last week, Det Supt Gradwell's boss, Jersey's new acting chief officer, David Warcup, said Mr Harper's conduct of the Haut de la Garenne investigation was becoming a matter of deepening concern and, as officers continued their review of the case, it was increasingly coming under scrutiny.
His staff say they are particularly worried that Mr Harper misrepresented Dr Roberts and have asked for access to our recording of interviews. Considering this to be in the public interest, we have agreed.
The Mail on Sunday has learned that officers from Sussex are carrying out an investigation into alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act over leaked email correspondence between Mr Harper and Jersey's attorney-general, and the police are also said to be concerned at the inquiry's profligate expenditure - such as a decision to send two officers First Class to Australia, and a £100,000 bill for the use of Eddie the sniffer dog.
Last night Mr Harper told The Mail on Sunday: 'The wording of the email actually corroborates my account of what I have said during the Historical Abuse Inquiry.
'I describe the findings as we received them. In the expert's opinion, the bones were no more than a few decades old.' When asked what he meant by this, he replied: 'The Fifties or Sixties.'
He went on to say: 'As everyone now knows, subsequent carbon dating failed to tie the age of the bones down. One typical estimate received from it was that the bones were of someone who died between 1650 and 1950.
'On receiving this information we immediately made it public. In the event, the required standard of confirmation was not received and no murder inquiry was ever launched.'
Red herring: Forensics officers work in the area were the 'skull' was found
Referring to the rusty metal identified as a gutter bracket and electric cable pin, he said: 'The rusty piece of metal referred to me as shackles was a length of chain with a manacle type bracelet on each end.'
He said he did not know a lot about gutters but had never seen anything resembling a pair of manacles, adding: 'We might have no evidence that those items were used as shackles but we did have evidence that children were shackled in there. Where is Gradwell's evidence that they have not been used in that way?'
Regarding the authenticity of the 'skull fragment', Mr Harper said: 'This item has never been positively identified and we did not pursue it further as we had already ruled it out of the inquiry following our archaeologists confirming it was placed where we found it before the parameters of our inquiry.'
He added that Stuart Syvret, Jersey's former health minister, was in touch with many victims and would be 'interested to see the lengths to which the establishment, police or otherwise are going to in their attempt to smear me and brand the victims of horrific abuse as liars'.
Mr Harper still insists he did nothing wrong, and acted only in the interests of the victims of abuse.
To an increasing extent, others question that view. Two trials of alleged abusers are pending.
'The fear is that Lenny's behaviour will make it impossible to get convictions,' one senior Jersey legal source said. 'Instead of obtaining justice for the victims, he may have weakened their prospects of getting it.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html
-
No it is a myth, there is no proof it was a coconut shell.
You haven't caught up with the concept of when something IS something and when something APPEARS to be something.
I repeat there is no firm evidential proof that it was coconut.
That account was on the basis of what a tehcnician THOUGHT the piece of bone looked like, and contained no scientific evidence to support that appearance. Also the technician admitted and as i have evidenced, and indeed she stated that it could equally be bone.
The bottom line, from reading Lenny Harper's testimony and evidence was she didn't have a clue what it was.
Keep up man!
From the Wiltshire report:
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=561
-
Daily Mail doesnt count Carana
@)(++(*
-
Daily Mail doesnt count Carana
@)(++(*
And neither does Blacksmith
-
And neither does Blacksmith
The Wiltshire Report does though.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
-
And neither does Blacksmith
Whats Blacksmith got to do with his.
Nothing
@)(++(*
-
The Wiltshire Report does though.
5.6.20 X (ORAU) reported that the Jersey sample only had 0.6 % N. Ordinarily this is too low to yield extractable collagen of any quality. Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material, the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood.
Thats that then, the jersey abusers were murdering trees, well done
But the trees happened to have childrens milk teeth, possible I suppose in some peoples minds
-
Thats that then, the jersey abusers were murdering trees, well done
But the trees happened to have childrens milk teeth, possible I suppose in some peoples minds
Yes as Lenny Harper says:
Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood. Again, it is worthy of recall, that the builders who found the bones at this location thought they were human, and that one of them actually identified a bone as that of a child’s pelvic bone from the internet. Additionally, the police officer who was called to the scene was also dubious of the bones’ origins, as was the female pathologist who attended. She “did not like” the situation and referred the matter to her boss who said the bones where not consistent with being human. However, an Anthropologist later stated that he was incorrect and the measurements he quoted were entirely consistent with the bones being children’s’ pelvic bones as identified by one of the builders. The Anthropologist further stated that the Pathologist was not qualified to make the statement that he had.
And in relation to the canine searches:
Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication. I still was not keen to extend the search inside the house with the dog; however, I reluctantly conceded that we should look at all our possibilities so that we could walk away and say that we had given it a good shot. You can see me standing looking less than confident.
From here:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html
-
Thats that then, the jersey abusers were murdering trees, well done
But the trees happened to have childrens milk teeth, possible I suppose in some peoples minds
Not even possible, probable in the world inhabited by your average McCann support !
-
Albertini and Faith, its plain for anyone to see the jersey abuse scandal was covered up and this is from a non conspiratory person
-
plain for anyone to see
These blinkers do funny things to some people's sight ...
-
Albertini and Faith, its plain for anyone to see the jersey abuse scandal was covered up and this is from a non conspiratory person
The Jersey abuse scandal is used to discredit MG and Joana to discredit GA. This is what turns believers' faith rather unbearable.
-
The Jersey abuse scandal is used to discredit MG and Joana to discredit GA. This is what turns believers' faith rather unbearable.
Salut Anne. I think "Big Rock" did rather a good job of discrediting himself.
-
plain for anyone to see
These blinkers do funny things to some people's sight ...
you should know
-
The Jersey abuse scandal is used to discredit MG and Joana to discredit GA. This is what turns believers' faith rather unbearable.
Exactly, the abuse and deaths of others used to sanctify the mccanns, pretty disgusting by anyones book
-
Exactly, the abuse and deaths of others used to sanctify the mccanns, pretty disgusting by anyones book
Martin Grime's reputation was shot by the Madeleine enquiry.
The Portuguese may not have seen cadaver dogs before, but they certainly knew about sniffer dogs, and the Portuguese handlers who first searched for Madeleine were much more professional than Grime.
In their report, for example, is a reference to the possibility of preconceived notions biasing a handler's work and a precaution against that.
-
Martin Grime's reputation was shot by the Madeleine enquiry.
The Portuguese may not have seen cadaver dogs before, but they certainly knew about sniffer dogs, and the Portuguese handlers who first searched for Madeleine were much more professional than Grime.
In their report, for example, is a reference to the possibility of preconceived notions biasing a handler's work and a precaution against that.
his reputation was shot by who? Apart from you LOL
-
In their report, for example, is a reference to the possibility of preconceived notions biasing a handler's work and a precaution against that.
Where ?
BTW British Eddie confirmed Portuguese Numi, Rex and Zarus : no alive Madeleine was carried through the car park on the 3rd of May.
-
his reputation was shot by who? Apart from you LOL
The truth is Martin Grime has gone from strength to strength since the McCann case and is now relied upon by, among other law enforcement agencies, the FBi to give expert testimony in high profile cases.
-
The truth is Martin Grime has gone from strength to strength since the McCann case and is now relied upon by, among other law enforcement agencies, the FBi to give expert testimony in high profile cases.
Exactly! And good for him
-
Daily Mail doesnt count Carana
@)(++(*
I don't like the Mail, either.
However, I've always found David Rose to be a very good investigative journalist. And my list of competent journalists is not very long.
-
I don't like the Mail, either.
However, I've always found David Rose to be a very good investigative journalist. And my list of competent journalists is not very long.
he still is not a scientist ir policeman ergo knows diidly squat
-
Where ?
BTW British Eddie confirmed Portuguese Numi, Rex and Zarus : no alive Madeleine was carried through the car park on the 3rd of May.
This has been discussed thoroughly elsewhere. Why are you wumming?
The air scent from a little girl held about 4 feet from the ground would waft away in no time with gusts of wind over 20 mph. No dog would be able to follow that several hours l;ater
Waht nonsense you are talking.
-
Where ?
BTW British Eddie confirmed Portuguese Numi, Rex and Zarus : no alive Madeleine was carried through the car park on the 3rd of May.
Here:
However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
These Portuguese dog handlers certainly knew all about bias and about safeguards against it.
I'd love to know what they made of Grime's antics ...
-
Here:
However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.
These Portuguese dog handlers certainly knew all about bias and about safeguards against it.
I'd love to know what they made of Grime's antics ...
How do you know Mr Grime knew "which apartment was chosen" ?
-
How do you know Mr Grime knew "which apartment was chosen" ?
Might be because it was all over the news, for nearly 3 months before he got there!
-
Might be because it was all over the news, for nearly 3 months before he got there!
8@??)( @)(++(*
Well said DCI
-
Might be because it was all over the news, for nearly 3 months before he got there!
So he forced Eddie to be over excited outside 5a?Where he smelt the scent he was trained to look for? How did he do it? Whisper in his ear he could get two biscuits or tennis balls instead of one?Pull the other one. And in the other apartments telepathed him to not bother?
@)(++(*
-
So he forced Eddie to be over excited outside 5a?Where he smelt the scent he was trained to look for? How did he do it? Whisper in his ear he could get two biscuits or tennis balls instead of one?Pull the other one. And in the other apartments telepathed him to not bother?
@)(++(*
All these pages full of dog stuff are just a waste of time!
Sending the dogs in 3 months after the abduction, was a waste of time and money. What was the point? when god knows how many PJ, GNR, Dogs, and four family's had been in the apartment.
They found nothing of any use.
Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
Grime's statement, was appended at some point
On pages 2461 and following, the translation of the comments that were made by the dog handler, during the inspection actions, was appended.
I bet Grime was laughing all the way to the bank
-
All these pages full of dog stuff are just a waste of time!
Sending the dogs in 3 months after the abduction, was a waste of time and money. What was the point? when god knows how many PJ, GNR, Dogs, and four family's had been in the apartment.
They found nothing of any use.
Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
Grime's statement, was appended at some point
On pages 2461 and following, the translation of the comments that were made by the dog handler, during the inspection actions, was appended.
I bet Grime was laughing all the way to the bank
So now you are an expert in forensics and the use of dogs ?
Dogs can detect scents of organic molecules some considerable time after first deposited.
Again this attack on Grime, why should he risk his reputation ?
All I see is any excuse to exonerate the Mccanns from responsibility and no more than that, and ridiculing or attacking one who doesn't believe/follow the Mccann mantra.
-
All these pages full of dog stuff are just a waste of time!
Sending the dogs in 3 months after the abduction, was a waste of time and money. What was the point? when god knows how many PJ, GNR, Dogs, and four family's had been in the apartment.
They found nothing of any use.
Final Report) but also, some of them at the reputed National Institute of Forensics Medicine (check Appendix I), whose final results did not corroborate the canine markings, which is to say, cellular material was collected that was not identified as pertaining to anyone specific, and it was not even possible to determine the quality of that material (v.g. whether it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
Grime's statement, was appended at some point
On pages 2461 and following, the translation of the comments that were made by the dog handler, during the inspection actions, was appended.
I bet Grime was laughing all the way to the bank
Keep telling yourself anything if it makes u happy doesnt make it true
@)(++(*
-
So now you are an expert in forensics and the use of dogs ?
Dogs can detect scents of organic molecules some considerable time after first deposited.
Again this attack on Grime, why should he risk his reputation ?
All I see is any excuse to exonerate the Mccanns from responsibility and no more than that, and ridiculing or attacking one who doesn't believe/follow the Mccann mantra.
Grime always made it clear, stephen, that any markings had to be followed up by forensic evidence, or they meant nothing
Why do you and others keep ignoring this?
-
Grime always made it clear, stephen, that any markings had to be followed up by forensic evidence, or they meant nothing
Why do you and others keep ignoring this?
Try reading more carefully.
I know this.
However, it doesn't mean the dogs were wrong.
-
Try reading more carefully.
I know this.
However, it doesn't mean the dogs were wrong.
No, but their findings are being interpreted wrongly ... as you well know
-
No, but their findings are being interpreted wrongly ... as you well know
No it doen't.
Only for those with closed minds.
-
No it doen't.
Only for those with closed minds.
Open your mind Stephen
Let the sunshine in
Instead of always thinking evil thoughts
-
Open your mind Stephen
Let the sunshine in
Instead of always thinking evil thoughts
You really need some serious help.
Your fantasy world of non-existant abductors is becoming a tad repetitive.
-
You really need some serious help.
Your fantasy world of non-existant abductors is becoming a tad repetitive.
Awwww! I must have been brain washed by you
-
Awwww! I must have been brain washed by you
Be careful or you might split your infinitive. @)(++(*
-
Be careful or you might split your infinitive. @)(++(*
Am dsylexic, but I am not daft as you keep trying to make out.