In places Madeleine never lived in nor went near,May I ask you why you think a police investigation should be limited to places that it was known Madeleine lived in or went near. Madeleine never lived on or, AFAIK, went near any of the 3 areas dug by OG in June 2014. Should these 3 places have been declared off limits?
namely:
The Renault scenic (hired 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared)
Vehicles, owned or driven by people never arguidos in the investigation
The villa the McCanns moved in to after Madeleine vanished, with a full-scale criminal investigation (then) already in full swing.
The gym, a place neither Madeleine nor anyone close to her went anywhere near in her/their life(ves).
To be clear, while the investigation identified nothing in any vehicle owned by Robert Murat to associate him with Madeleine's disappearance, Murat was, at the time, an arguido in the investigation, justifying grounds for subjecting his vehicles to inspection, even though nothing of relevance to the enquiry was found, in either vehicle belonging to him.
But it is plain daft to suppose the McCanns would have taken Madeleine somewhere dead in a vehicle hired 3 weeks after her abduction, and especially in a blaze of publicity such as that that accompanied their (freely shared!) visit to Huelva in Spain.
It is plain daft to suppose that anything of relevance to Madeleine might have been found: in the Renault Scenic, and especially on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic, in the villa or in the gym.
What was the rationale behind any of it?
May I ask you why you think a police investigation should be limited to places that it was known Madeleine lived in or went near. Madeleine never lived on or, AFAIK, went near any of the 3 areas dug by OG in June 2014. Should these 3 places have been declared off limits?
In places Madeleine never lived in nor went near,
namely:
The Renault scenic (hired 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared)
Vehicles, owned or driven by people never arguidos in the investigation
The villa the McCanns moved in to after Madeleine vanished, with a full-scale criminal investigation (then) already in full swing.
The gym, a place neither Madeleine nor anyone close to her went anywhere near in her/their life(ves).
To be clear, while the investigation identified nothing in any vehicle owned by Robert Murat to associate him with Madeleine's disappearance, Murat was, at the time, an arguido in the investigation, justifying grounds for subjecting his vehicles to inspection, even though nothing of relevance to the enquiry was found, in either vehicle belonging to him.
But it is plain daft to suppose the McCanns would have taken Madeleine somewhere dead in a vehicle hired 3 weeks after her abduction, and especially in a blaze of publicity such as that that accompanied their (freely shared!) visit to Huelva in Spain.
It is plain daft to suppose that anything of relevance to Madeleine might have been found: in the Renault Scenic, and especially on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic, in the villa or in the gym.
What was the rationale behind any of it?
Leaving no stone unturned?.......
In places Madeleine never lived in nor went near,
namely:
The Renault scenic (hired 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared)
Vehicles, owned or driven by people never arguidos in the investigation
The villa the McCanns moved in to after Madeleine vanished, with a full-scale criminal investigation (then) already in full swing.
The gym, a place neither Madeleine nor anyone close to her went anywhere near in her/their life(ves).
To be clear, while the investigation identified nothing in any vehicle owned by Robert Murat to associate him with Madeleine's disappearance, Murat was, at the time, an arguido in the investigation, justifying grounds for subjecting his vehicles to inspection, even though nothing of relevance to the enquiry was found, in either vehicle belonging to him.
But it is plain daft to suppose the McCanns would have taken Madeleine somewhere dead in a vehicle hired 3 weeks after her abduction, and especially in a blaze of publicity such as that that accompanied their (freely shared!) visit to Huelva in Spain.
It is plain daft to suppose that anything of relevance to Madeleine might have been found: in the Renault Scenic, and especially on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic, in the villa or in the gym.
What was the rationale behind any of it?
Have you never heard of scent transfer?
Scent-transfer is the principle that made special mockery of the inspection in the gym.
The point has (rightly) been raised that all items, apparently, 'reacted to' in the gym were transported in the same container, meaning that (in the event of any item in the box having a death-scent) it would have transferred to all items in that box.
However, that point, though important, misses a wider and still more important point. Those clothes were in common circulation as clothes are for fully 3 months after the crime: worn, washed, packed in suitcases, folded away on wardrobe shelves (etc, etc,), meaning that cross-transfer of a death scent (assuming, I don't, that there ever was one) would have occurred long before the 'inspection', rendering said inspection nul-and-void.
What was the point of any of it?
In places Madeleine never lived in nor went near,
namely:
The Renault scenic (hired 3 weeks after Madeleine disappeared)
Vehicles, owned or driven by people never arguidos in the investigation
The villa the McCanns moved in to after Madeleine vanished, with a full-scale criminal investigation (then) already in full swing.
The gym, a place neither Madeleine nor anyone close to her went anywhere near in her/their life(ves).
To be clear, while the investigation identified nothing in any vehicle owned by Robert Murat to associate him with Madeleine's disappearance, Murat was, at the time, an arguido in the investigation, justifying grounds for subjecting his vehicles to inspection, even though nothing of relevance to the enquiry was found, in either vehicle belonging to him.
But it is plain daft to suppose the McCanns would have taken Madeleine somewhere dead in a vehicle hired 3 weeks after her abduction, and especially in a blaze of publicity such as that that accompanied their (freely shared!) visit to Huelva in Spain.
It is plain daft to suppose that anything of relevance to Madeleine might have been found: in the Renault Scenic, and especially on the ignition key of the Renault Scenic, in the villa or in the gym.
What was the rationale behind any of it?
I'm not privy to any details of operation Grange, obviously, but I imagine that they were searching for, or wanted to eliminate the possibility of, deceased remains having been deposited in any of the areas they searched, just as would have been the same for those recommendations of Harrison that focussed on areas around PdL.
Scent-transfer is the principle that made special mockery of the inspection in the gym.
The point has (rightly) been raised that all items, apparently, 'reacted to' in the gym were transported in the same container, meaning that (in the event of any item in the box having a death-scent) it would have transferred to all items in that box.
However, that point, though important, misses a wider and still more important point. Those clothes were in common circulation as clothes are for fully 3 months after the crime: worn, washed, packed in suitcases, folded away on wardrobe shelves (etc, etc,), meaning that cross-transfer of a death scent (assuming, I don't, that there ever was one) would have occurred long before the 'inspection', rendering said inspection nul-and-void.
What was the point of any of it?
Believe it or not, it's what police do, they investigate every possible scenario.
Partially correct, as I've noted before.
Here is the critical caveat, though.
They do so in the hope of finding something that will assist, or even solve, an enquiry.
I've asked the question before and will repeat it: even hypothetically, what of worth to the enquiry might have come from most of these inspections?
Hypothetically, the vehicle-inspection might have held up the possibility of finding Madeleine's blood in a vehicle driven by Murat. Of course, we should underline and emphasise that no such find was made, and that Robert Murat's arguido status was lifted because no evidence against him was ever found. Of course, the same is hypothetically true of Mruat's villa. Again, it should be stressed that nothing suspicious of Robert Murat was found.
But the McCanns' villa?
Madeleine never lived in it.
The McCanns' vehicle? The one with the find Madeleine stickers on the back?
The only vehicle of interest in a nominal line-up of 10.
The one with Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
The one hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished.
Why inspect it at all?
The gym?
No one associated with Madeleine went near it; neither (of course!) Madeleine herself.
Partially correct, as I've noted before.
Here is the critical caveat, though.
They do so in the hope of finding something that will assist, or even solve, an enquiry.
I've asked the question before and will repeat it: even hypothetically, what of worth to the enquiry might have come from most of these inspections?
Hypothetically, the vehicle-inspection might have held up the possibility of finding Madeleine's blood in a vehicle driven by Murat. Of course, we should underline and emphasise that no such find was made, and that Robert Murat's arguido status was lifted because no evidence against him was ever found. Of course, the same is hypothetically true of Mruat's villa. Again, it should be stressed that nothing suspicious of Robert Murat was found.
But the McCanns' villa?
Madeleine never lived in it.
The McCanns' vehicle? The one with the find Madeleine stickers on the back?
The only vehicle of interest in a nominal line-up of 10.
The one with Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
The one hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished.
Why inspect it at all?
The gym?
No one associated with Madeleine went near it; neither (of course!) Madeleine herself.
Because they wanted to.
They don't need to explain their reasons to you, or indeed anyone outside of the Portuguese Justice system.
They werent inspecting the bloody gym for signs of madeleine were they???? It was a location for inspection of items.
What was the purpose of the inspection in the gym?
The gym was not inspected
Clothes and other belongings were IN THE GYM
All material has been released into the public domain, much of it deeply damaging to the reputations of innocent people, inviting analysis and leaving a need for answers.
Oh dear me, what a shame.
The information is out there so we can see what was done. There is no need for the Portuguese to justify their investigation.
We can indeed but that apparently is not the game.
The same topic has ben closed down several times only to arise instantly like a poxy phoenix out of the ashes.
Of course the only (valid) criticism is that these vital points are not discussed nearly as extensively as they should be.
No one proffers a answers to the questions I ask because they have none.
Oh dear me, what a shame.
The information is out there so we can see what was done. There is no need for the Portuguese to justify their investigation.
Vital ? - to whom?
Your indifference to the suffering of others doesn't surprise me in the least.
They werent inspecting the bloody gym for signs of madeleine were they???? It was a location for inspection of items.
Scent-transfer is the principle that made special mockery of the inspection in the gym.
The point has (rightly) been raised that all items, apparently, 'reacted to' in the gym were transported in the same container, meaning that (in the event of any item in the box having a death-scent) it would have transferred to all items in that box.
However, that point, though important, misses a wider and still more important point. Those clothes were in common circulation as clothes are for fully 3 months after the crime: worn, washed, packed in suitcases, folded away on wardrobe shelves (etc, etc,), meaning that cross-transfer of a death scent (assuming, I don't, that there ever was one) would have occurred long before the 'inspection', rendering said inspection nul-and-void.
What was the point of any of it?
Vital to those not indifferent to the suffering of others.
I doubt very much if the 'information' from the transfer of clothes to the gymnasium from the McCann villa would have stood up in a court. That is, if it was even capable of getting that far.
There was a good reason that the case against the McCanns didn't result in them being charged with any criminal offense. There simply wasn't any evidence to warrant bringing charges resulting in a court case.
In fact, there was never any justification in making them suspects in the first place.
Even had there been any evidence resulting from the inspection of clothes in the villa and then again in the gymnasium ... the aquisition of it was so amateurish and flawed that a legal defence team would have made mincemeat of it and anyone presenting it.
I sincerely do not think a man with Harrison's CV would wish to be associated with a process where the chain of evidence was unclear and the exhibits packed in such an inexperienced higgledy piggeldly manner.
It just wasn't a professionally carried out process.
Read the information below ... then make a mental comparison with what we have read and watched on video with what actually happened in the Praia da Luz inspections.
Preserving and maintaining evidence collected at a scene is crucial. The key is understanding evidence and understanding the proper way to package it.
First, a few important points:
Choose packaging of the proper size and material for the evidence.
Package each piece of evidence separately, and properly label, seal, and document it.
Evidence tape is designed to fracture easily to indicate tampering; it’s not meant to hold bags shut and boxes together.
Use packing tape to seal bags and boxes, then place evidence tape over the packing tape.
Sign across the tape, with half the signature on the tape and half on the package.
That way, your evidence will be securely packaged, and you’ll notice any tampering.
For basic collection, you’ll need an assortment of clean, new paper and Ziploc bags.
]Never use an old paper sack or an old plastic bag, or you risk contaminating your evidence.
If you put a sweater from the scene into an old grocery bag and the lab finds a hair, they won’t know if it came from the bag or the sweater.
http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2013/02/properly-packaging-evidence
They were re-inspecting clothing earlier ignored by both dogs in the villa.
Why?
And what explanation for no reaction in the villa, yet reaction in the gym, of exactly the same clothing.
What explanation for inspecting clothing at all
You keep parrotting they searched places madeleine has never been to and referenced the gym in all those posts!
you should be grateful people are giving you the benefit of the doubt but you have failed to present any case, tata
Partially correct, as I've noted before.
Here is the critical caveat, though.
They do so in the hope of finding something that will assist, or even solve, an enquiry.
I've asked the question before and will repeat it: even hypothetically, what of worth to the enquiry might have come from most of these inspections?
Hypothetically, the vehicle-inspection might have held up the possibility of finding Madeleine's blood in a vehicle driven by Murat. Of course, we should underline and emphasise that no such find was made, and that Robert Murat's arguido status was lifted because no evidence against him was ever found. Of course, the same is hypothetically true of Mruat's villa. Again, it should be stressed that nothing suspicious of Robert Murat was found.
But the McCanns' villa?
Madeleine never lived in it.
The McCanns' vehicle? The one with the find Madeleine stickers on the back?
The only vehicle of interest in a nominal line-up of 10.
The one with Gerry's blood on the ignition key.
The one hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished.
Why inspect it at all?
The gym?
No one associated with Madeleine went near it; neither (of course!) Madeleine herself.
All material has been released into the public domain, much of it deeply damaging to the reputations of innocent people, inviting analysis and leaving a need for answers.
The gym (according to the official account!) was inspected.
That is, according to the official account.
Of course the only (valid) criticism is that these vital points are not discussed nearly as extensively as they should be.
No one proffers a answers to the questions I ask because they have none.
Time for the serenity prayer:On about killing again, Alice? What ever is the matter with you ?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
or if you prefer "the wisdom to bury the bodies of those I have killed because they pissed me off".
They were re-inspecting clothing earlier ignored by both dogs in the villa.
Why?
And what explanation for no reaction in the villa, yet reaction in the gym, of exactly the same clothing.
What explanation for inspecting clothing at all
WRONG!Sorry John, but it is you that is wrong.
You keep asking the same questions because you don't like the answers already given. You remind me of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, they keep asking for more referendums until they get the result they desire.
Sorry John, but it is you that is wrong.
ferryman always gives supporting information when he states anything.
The truth of the matter is that not one on your side can deny what he says with suitable supporting evidence ... so they resort to sneering at him.
I would suggest the clothing in the villa was stored away in drawers or suitcases so bringing items out for proper examination in neutral surroundings had its benefits. Don't get me wrong though, I agree with you that the methodology was a complete shambles.Well these dogs are supposed to be able to smell blood and cadaver odour thru concrete, fairly deep water and all sorts of places. Surely they could smell thru suitcases ? The narcotic dogs at airports have no real problems it seems.
Sorry to disappoint Sadie but you obviously haven't been following the discussion. There were sound reasons why Harrison agreed with the searches and inspections being extended to those locations and items not previously suggested. He was the expert and was best placed to decide what was required and not you, me, ferryman or anyone else on this forum.
Well these dogs are supposed to be able to smell blood and cadaver odour thru concrete, fairly deep water and all sorts of places. Surely they could smell thru suitcases ? The narcotic dogs at airports have no real problems it seems.
Anyway, as far as we can see there was NO reaction to Cadavar odour amongst the clothing laid out in the gym. The only item, S***s red top, alerted to was by Eddie BUT it could have been to decaying blood from a living person, because he was trained to alert to that too.
Keela was not shown the red top, as she should have been, to confirm whether it was living blood or not ... so there is no knowing what he was alerting to.
However, common sense tells us that the far more likely scent alerted to is decaying blood from a living person rather than the very unlikely cadaver scent.
Eddie could even have been alerting to the scent of dead pig in the form of bacon or pork drips down his tee shirt. He was trained on dead pig.
That's very true but then Eddie could very well have detected cadaverine.
The ONLY reason why there was even thought of Cadaverine was because Amaral was convinced that the Mccanns were involved. He was convinced on that right from the morning after Madeleine went missing ... and upon NO evidence whatsoever.
TBH John, he became totally bigotted about it ... and all he was interested in doing was trying to nail The Mccanns. He never really searched for a living Madeleine at all. That is disgraceful IMO
Now , I wish you 'Good night'
Ferryman has a very valid point is pointing out that some of the search reports started with the word "it" rather than referring to Harrison. That these searches beginning with "it" were NOT Harrisons.
That was a very astute observation on his part and it is very pertinent
If you are unable to see the relevance, then I feel sorry for you, because you are missing an important point.
Vital to those not indifferent to the suffering of others.
Strange, the quote is different to your post. I wonder why?
The ONLY reason why there was even thought of Cadaverine was because Amaral was convinced that the Mccanns were involved. He was convinced on that right from the morning after Madeleine went missing ... and upon NO evidence whatsoever.
TBH John, he became totally bigotted about it ... and all he was interested in doing was trying to nail The Mccanns. He never really searched for a living Madeleine at all. That is disgraceful IMO
Now , I wish you 'Good night'
A good cop is suspicious of everyone from day 1 so Amaral was right to be so since it is the parents who are culpable in many cases. Coming hot footed from the Cipriano case as he did I'm quite sure it crossed his mind to check out Madeleine's parents.nothing wrong with suspecting the parents...amarals fault was completely misunderstanding the forensic evidence.......even now he still has not admitted his mistakes
Amaral was but one officer, any decisions as to suspects would have been a team decision.
Night now.
A good cop is suspicious of everyone from day 1 so Amaral was right to be so since it is the parents who are culpable in many cases. Coming hot footed from the Cipriano case as he did I'm quite sure it crossed his mind to check out Madeleine's parents.
Amaral was but one officer, any decisions as to suspects would have been a team decision.
Night now.
You ask why the inspections at the McCann's rental villa and of the hire car, both of which should have had no association with Madeleine. A resaonable question and one which I would have thought most people could answer. The reason the villa and the hire car were inspected was to see if either had come into contact with a cadaver. And the reason these inspections took place was because of the positive alerts registered in apartment 5a.
Agreed a Good cop is suspicious of everyone and rightly so. However from what he has admitted, Amaral made up his mind from day 1 that The Mccanns were involved.
And he stopped looking for a living Madeleine; he was looking for a body only and stuff to convict The Mccanns.
If only .... IF ONLY ... in the golden hours he had searched hard for a living Madeleine and taken more note of sightings, maybe Madeleine might have been back with her Mum and Dad in a few hours.
Except that you haven't answered the question.
The hire car was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished. The villa was moved in to after Madeleine vanished.
On about killing again, Alice? What ever is the matter with you ?
nothing wrong with suspecting the parents...amarals fault was completely misunderstanding the forensic evidence.......even now he still has not admitted his mistakes
Agreed a Good cop is suspicious of everyone and rightly so. However from what he has admitted, Amaral made up his mind from day 1 that The Mccanns were involved.
And he stopped looking for a living Madeleine; he was looking for a body only and stuff to convict The Mccanns.
If only .... IF ONLY ... in the golden hours he had searched hard for a living Madeleine and taken more note of sightings, maybe Madeleine might have been back with her Mum and Dad in a few hours.
Except that you haven't answered the question.
The hire car was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished. The villa was moved in to after Madeleine vanished.
I did in fact but for your benefit I will repeat it. They were looking for indications of the residual scent associated with death in both the villa and the hire car. It doesn't take too much to work out why they made that decision given the positive alerts in apartment 5a.
These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
This document was discussed on 23-07-07 with the PJ Director, myself and the Leicestershire Police liaison officer DI Neil Holden who made relevant notes.
These two pages are an official document for the case file regarding the search dog examination of apartments in the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Lagos on 31 July 2007.
Approval was granted for an 'inspection' in the villa before the 'inspections' in the holiday apartments even took place:
Looks as if my earlier post was removed. No surprises there, then ....
Why?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
Might explain why Grime sweated and strained to get a 'reaction' out of Eddie in apartment 5a, where the dog spent twice as long as in any of the other apartments combined.
Your first quote is about the discussion to search 5a etc. You need to read your cites.
Approval was granted for 'inspections' in places Madeleine never lived in or went near about a week before the inspection in the holiday apartment.
- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
This document was discussed on 23-07-07 with the PJ Director, myself and the Leicestershire Police liaison officer DI Neil Holden who made relevant notes.
On 25-07-07 the PJ Director decided his officers would re-search some of the areas suggested within the report. He also decided the order of their priority. These were the accommodation the McCann’s and their friends have occupied in Praia da Luz, the villa and the grounds occupied by Robert Murat, wasteland that surrounds these locations and any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared.
The inspection of apartments was 31 July.
You need a few more than half a dozen brain-cells to work out that all accommodation occupied by the McCann family would include the villa, particularly as Harrison, earlier, made reference only to the holiday apartments.
It presumably also includes every house, flat, hotel, cruise ship, caravan or tent they've stayed in since it was written.
Strange, the quote is different to your post. I wonder why?
The ONLY reason why there was even thought of Cadaverine was because Amaral was convinced that the Mccanns were involved. He was convinced on that right from the morning after Madeleine went missing ... and upon NO evidence whatsoever.
TBH John, he became totally bigotted about it ... and all he was interested in doing was trying to nail The Mccanns. He never really searched for a living Madeleine at all. That is disgraceful IMO
Now , I wish you 'Good night'
Joao Carlos asked Amaral for permission to request search warrants for the McCann villa and car on 1st August because of the alerts in 5A;
The above reports state that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and human blood inside the apartment, it already having been established that no death has occurred there previously.
Further, and of no small importance, it is also requested that a magistrate issue search warrants for [the above two locations] to enable us to recover new items/clues.
I ask that you consider the above and decide at your convenience.
Portimao, 1 August 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm
Quote- All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles.
- The villa and garden occupied by Robert Murat and any vehicles he had access to.
- Areas of wasteland adjacent to Murat’s and the McCann’s apartment.
- Areas of the beach in Praia da Luz.
- A portion of the coastline east of Praia da Luz.
These recommendations were based on the fact that these areas had not been previously searched with the specific intent to locate Madeleine McCann’s concealed and deceased body and that the areas recommended afforded likely and obvious places to consider for concealment in such an investigation.
This document was discussed on 23-07-07 with the PJ Director, myself and the Leicestershire Police liaison officer DI Neil Holden who made relevant notes.
On 25-07-07 the PJ Director decided his officers would re-search some of the areas suggested within the report. He also decided the order of their priority. These were the accommodation the McCann’s and their friends have occupied in Praia da Luz, the villa and the grounds occupied by Robert Murat, wasteland that surrounds these locations and any known vehicles the suspect, the McCanns and their friends had access to when Madeleine disappeared.
The inspection of apartments was 31 July.
The inspection of apartments was 31 July.I don't see the need to introduce time limits "All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles" as relating to the time of the disappearance between now and then, anytime"
Yes and it was the following day that Joao Carlos requested permission to extend the search (my previous post refers).
I read, "All accommodation occupied by the McCann family and their friends as well as any hired vehicles" as relating to the time of the disappearance and not the end of July.
I think it worth posting the contents of the request since it states clearly that the search/inspection of the rental villa and the Scenic hire car are requested following the dog alerts recorded in apartment 5a.
A note for the case file dated 1 August 2007 with respect to the dog search reports from 31 July and 1 August requesting the authorisation necessary to search the then-residence of the McCann family and the hire vehicle.
Faced with the new matters brought to the file through the dog search reports above, [those searches being] based on Mark Harrison's report already on file, and which [search results] support that Madeleine McCann may have died inside apartment 5A, Ocean Club, Luz, Lagos, where she was on holiday with her parents and two siblings.
The above reports state that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour and human blood inside the apartment, it already having been established that no death has occurred there previously.
In point a) [apartment 5A] of the report we can infer the locations of cadaver odour as well as the presence of traces of human blood. Also at point f) we see that cadaver odour was detected in the garden immediately adjacent to apartment 5A. Nothing was signalled in the other places.
In order to allow us to thoroughly examine this situation, which could have its conclusion through new evidence, it is requested for a voice record, legally sanctioned, specifically of two locations:
1 - Rua das Flores, no 27, Vivenda Vista do Mar, Luz Park, Luz, Lagos (the present residence of the McCann family in Luz)
2 - Hired vehicle used by the McCanns, the "Renault Scenic", number plate 59-DA-27.
Further, and of no small importance, it is also requested that a magistrate issue search warrants for [the above two locations] to enable us to recover new items/clues.
I ask that you consider the above and decide at your convenience.
Portimao, 1 August 2007
Inspector
Joao Carlos
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm
Actually, thinking about it, why did they have the inspection in the Gym?
The dogs had gone to the villa, had not alerted to any clothes there. As Sadie has said in an earlier post, Grime said Eddie was able to detect cadaver scent through concrete and water, so he should have been able to detect cadaver scent on clothes in drawers or hanging in the wardrobe.
Has there been any other case where dogs had searched a house/villa/apartment detected nothing, then clothes belonging to the people living there had been taken to another area to have a second inspection done?
Were clothes belonging to Murat taken to a Gym to be inspected?
Who is to say that Eddie wasn't alerting to something under the concrete in the Gym?
It is all very peculiar when you think about it.
Good post, but particularly what I have put in bold.
No clothing of Murat's inspected.
I don't (necessarily) criticise the omission.
But I do highlight the inconsistency.
ETA: That anomaly (about Murat's clothing) had never occurred to me before. But it's a very valid point.
So, it looks as if approval was granted in principle to searches beyond those recommended by Harrison, but dependent on something, at least deemed to be of interest emerging from those searches Harrison recommended.
Grime strained every sinew to get something out of Eddie in the holiday apartment and (just about!) managed it.
Then formal approval was sought and granted for the extended range of searches (beyond the original and recommendations of Harrison).
The extra searches were requested due to the dog alerts in 5A. They were requested on Harrison's recommendation, as he claims in his final report.
Your remark about Grime is unfounded, Eddie was 'in scent' as soon as he entered 5A, there was no need for any sinews to be strained.
The extra searches were requested due to the dog alerts in 5A. They were requested on Harrison's recommendation, as he claims in his final report.
Your remark about Grime is unfounded, Eddie was 'in scent' as soon as he entered 5A, there was no need for any sinews to be strained.
So when did Eddie first get into scent? He appeared to be just as 'enthusiastic' when walking down the path (straining on the leash) way before he reached 5A - as he was when he entered the apartment. Could it be that after being cooped up in the back of a van - he was dead keen to get on with the game he loved playing?
Was this his first search of the day?
(from memory so happy to be corrected if necessary)
Approved (in principle) before any searches took place.
Why wait until after the alerts in 5A to request the search warrants then?
The prior approval in principle to an extended range of searches rested on it being deemed that something of worth came from Harrison's (sole) recommendations and schedule of searches.
Grime managed to squeeze something out of Eddie in apartment 5a (part of Harrison's, original, proposal) and approval for the extended searches, already granted in principle, was duly formalised.
Harrison, as we know, retrospectively acknowledged Grime and his dogs only in those searches he (Harrison) recommended.
Of course you are completely unable to provide a cite for this 'prior approval' because there isn't one.
You seem to think Eddie's like a squeaky toy; squeeze and he barks. Do you understand Pavlovian responses at all? The dog reacts to a specific stimulus. If the stimulus is absent the response is also absent.
Once again, nothing can be deduced from the manner in which a report was written. That's because there could be other reasons for the way it was written than the one you promote.
There is and I've already quoted it.
You mean this?
This document was discussed on 23-07-07 with the PJ Director, myself and the Leicestershire Police liaison officer DI Neil Holden who made relevant notes.
The document discussed was? “Madeleine McCann Search Decision Support Document”
Who is to say that Eddie wasn't alerting to something under the concrete in the Gym?
Good post, but particularly what I have put in bold.
No clothing of Murat's inspected.
I don't (necessarily) criticise the omission.
But I do highlight the inconsistency.
ETA: That anomaly (about Murat's clothing) had never occurred to me before. But it's a very valid point.
The Murat's never faced the indignation of having their clothing laid out on a floor and trampled over by dogs was by reason that no alerts were made in their home or cars.
Every dog owner can read their dog's body language. Grime had Eddie from a puppy, so their bond was solid;
Ok what was done was we deployed the victim recovery dog into the apartment and by experience and the training of the dog what I first noticed is that as soon as I came in that the dog was very excited and as a handler I can pick up his body language etc and it would appear to me that as soon as he has come into the house he's picked up a scent that he recognises and he has then gone through the apartment trying to source where that scent source has come from
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Prior approval for inspections beyond those recommended by Harrison.
Unless you were present that's pure speculation.
There's nothing speculative about what the record says.
If what the written record isn't true (we know it isn't in at least one key respect!) we're all screwed
You're speculating about a meeting, not a written record.
Where did the quote "The scent he 'recognised' here has been proved to be cellular material (blood?) from a living person..." come from Brietta? Person equals human but how did you work it come from someone living as opposed to recently deceased and frozen and subsequently thawed cadaver as Amaral suspected?(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_p305OiLZRCU/So572VW1N8I/AAAAAAAAGCQ/RZJoCRfhUmQ/S220/eddie_howl.jpg)Eddie shown alerting to "a scent that he recognises"The scent he 'recognised' here has been proved to be cellular material (blood?) from a living person ... which rather suggests that no reliance can be placed on what Eddie alerts to.
Much as his owner and handler has already attested.
Where did the quote "The scent he 'recognised' here has been proved to be cellular material (blood?) from a living person..." come from Brietta? Person equals human but haw did you work it come from someone living as apposed to recently deceased and frozen and subsequently thawed as Amaral suspected?
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Gerry's blood on the ignition key (forensically confirmed) is what Eddie reacted to.I don't think you can say that either. If Gerry's blood was found on the key that should have been found by Keela IMO but if Gerry had handled a frozen cadaver, both cadaver odour and blood could be on a key. There is no test for the cadaver odour. So you can't say or imply there was no cadaver odour.
I don't think you can say that either. If gerry's blood found on the key that would have been found by Keela IMO but if Gerry had handled a frozen cadaver both cadaver odour and blood could be on a key. There is no test for the cadaver odour.
Read my edit above.I did and my edit thanks.
I did and my edit thanks.
I don't think you can say that either. If Gerry's blood was found on the key that should have been found by Keela IMO but if Gerry had handled a frozen cadaver, both cadaver odour and blood could be on a key. There is no test for the cadaver odour. So you can't say or imply there was no cadaver odour.
If Gerry's blood is found on the key that could be explained by a scratch occurring weeks months after Madeleine disappeared and hence would have no evidential value. Thanks for that.
If there had been cadaver scent on the key fob it would have been transferred to the pocket in the vehicle from which the key fob had been removed.
By using a process of elimination it was determined that Eddie was alerting to the key fob ~Therefore the only alert attributable to Eddie in the garage was to Dr G McCann's blood which forensics showed was on the key fob. He absolutely did not alert to the scent of a corpse ... despite everything which has been said to back up that myth over the years.
- the VRD alerted at the car door with the key fob in situ
- when the key fob was removed from the vehicle, Eddie alerted to it in a different location
- he did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed ~ showing that it was the key fob he alerted to and not residual cadaver scent anywhere within the vehicle
- the CSI alerted to the key fob ~ which indicated that it was alerting to the scent of blood
If there had been cadaver scent on the key fob it would have been transferred to the pocket in the vehicle from which the key fob had been removed.That was a valiant argument Brietta. One or two things I didn't know there so I'll have to research a bit to counter your points.
By using a process of elimination it was determined that Eddie was alerting to the key fob ~Therefore the only alert attributable to Eddie in the garage was to Dr G McCann's blood which forensics showed was on the key fob. He absolutely did not alert to the scent of a corpse ... despite everything which has been said to back up that myth over the years.
- the VRD alerted at the car door with the key fob in situ
- when the key fob was removed from the vehicle, Eddie alerted to it in a different location
- he did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed ~ showing that it was the key fob he alerted to and not residual cadaver scent anywhere within the vehicle
- the CSI alerted to the key fob ~ which indicated that it was alerting to the scent of blood
1. Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"It is just about a job for an expert to decipher the language they use for DNA results. It is good to see you attempted it Mercury.
I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved
There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Versus
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
Just saying
Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description re the samples and their dna profiles is identical
Well thanks and its little thinhs like that that matter especially when they have not been explained away by people arguing x or yI feel I need to go back to basics and learn how to understand DNA results 1.01
1. Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"
I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved
There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Versus
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
Just saying
Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description re the samples and their dna profiles is identical
1. Eddie "did not alert to the vehicle when the key fob had been removed"
I wasnt aware that eddie was deployed to the car after the key fob was double tested by both dogs
Ie if there was blood and cadavour odour on it no one would know as a cadaver alert cant be forensically proved
There is also a problem with insisting gerry mccanns blood was on the fob[/b] whilst at the same time insisting no blood from Madeleine was found in 5a[/b][i/] when the fss use almost identical phrases to describe the results from the blood dog in both 5a and the car find ie
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
Versus
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
Just saying
Because apart from the difference in the one talking about Madeleine and her father ie hers being a sample from more than one person, the description re the samples and their dna profiles is identical
Not one, single, instance of use of the word blood in John Lowe's report.
And the result (from the boot of the Renault Scenic) might well have contained, in the mix, DNA from Madeleine.
The fact, beyond all dispute, is that Madeleine herself never went near that vehicle.
In summary, that's what John Lowe's email to Stuart Prior says.
And the reason why Lowe, in his one and only report, referred to the result as too complex for meaningful interpretation.
If the word blood was not mentioned once in Lowes report, why do you contnuously post they found Gerrys blood on the keyfob?
The rest of your post has nothing at all to do with my question
Out of courtesy to Keela.That is possible - dog alerts to blood so we think the sample was blood but the lab just says it was "material" from Gerry not determining the tissue.
She is (or was! is she still working?) trained to react to nothing but human blood. If whatever she reacted to (on the key fob) was cellular material from Gerry (not in dispute!) and neither blood, Keela alerted falsely.
Out of courtesy to Keela.
She is (or was! is she still working?) trained to react to nothing but human blood. If whatever she reacted to (on the key fob) was cellular material from Gerry (not in dispute!) and neither blood, Keela alerted falsely.
I never disputed the blood alert, what you dont have is evidence it wasnt a cadaver alert at the same time
Yes I do.
Both dogs reacted to the key fob. Keela isn't trained to react to other than human blood.
As i said, both dogs may react to blood, that doesnt prove eddie wasnt alerting to cadaver odour on the double check, see?
Doesn't and wasn't.
Two negatives which (strictly grammatically!) = a positive.
We are talking grammar, here, not empirical evidence; still less law.
Combine the circumstance with the sheer implausibility of a vehicle hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished being used for anything other than living beings and their luggage.
And you have the full equation.
Cant you talk normally to put your case across for some reason?
I prefer plain speak to equations
It doesnt matter when the parents car was rented, thats a different argument
Of course it's relevant, because of the sheer implausibility of hiding 'a body' for 3 weeks before hiring a car.
You have holes in the dna and dog area to fill, which you still havent done as requetsed in my orevious posts, ie why is it gerrys profile in the car but not madekeines behind the sofa?
Even Amaral acknowledged that there would be nothing abnormal about finding Madeleine's DNA in the apartment.
No proof eddie must have only been alerting to blood, and supported by hs alerting to the wardrobe when the blood dog did not alert
Eddie's alerts are unreliable. Cuddle-cat demonstrates that, as does the fact that he, apparently, alerted to clothing in the gym he could find no hint of a scent on when the same clothing was tested in the villa.
Close the holes, then you can wave your flag
Youre still missing the point ferryman and havent answered my question from yesterday
Why do you accept gerrys dna was was found on the key fob but dont accept madeleines dna was found behind the sofa
You didnt need to go off on one about guilt, bad dogs etc
My post 104 as a reminder
Weak and incomplete DNA results which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from cellular material on the wet and dry swabs (14A & B} from the back of the sofa.
A weak and incomplete DNA result which showed indications of having originated from more than one person was obtained from cellular material on the dry swab (15A) from the back of the sofa.
A DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which appeared to have originated from at least two males who had contributed the majority of the DNA was obtained from cellular material obtained from the wet swab of the sofa (15B). in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Gerald McCann or Madeline McCann contributed DNA to this result. The DNA from this swab has not been subjected to LCN DNA profiling tests.
From John Lowe's report, here is the only reference I can find to the sofa:
In respect of the vehicle inspections, the point is often (and rightly!) made that the Renault was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine vanished.
But 7 other vehicles in the (nominal!) 'line-up' of 10 were owned or driven by people never arguidos in the process.
Why?
If you read the files they tell you why. All the vehicles could have been available to the arguidos.
Can you provide a cite?Does it really matter?
Does it really matter?
If you read the files they tell you why. All the vehicles could have been available to the arguidos.
Does it really matter?I'm interested. I didn't realise the McCanns had a fleet of vehicles at their disposal.
Wouldn't a rented car have all sorts of smells in it?
I remember watching I think it might have been Top Gear or something years ago, where they really examined a second hand car to see what they could find, the results were horrendous, all sorts of body fluids.
It was a similar car show -
Challenge 3: Forensic analysis. Each car was subjected to forensic analysis and the least constaminated car would win. Rutledge's car was found to be full of animal hair, urine, seminal fluid and traces of animal feces. Adam's car was full of vomit and blood, (though he states that's to be expected in a taxi), while Tanner's car is shown to be the most contaminated with dead skin cells, unknown protein-rich substance, mucous and staphylococcus bacteria. Afterwards, all three hosts try methods to protect themselves from the contaminants. Winner: Adam
It was ridiculous to have inspections of a rented car, not only because who would transport a body weeks old, which is a disgusting thought, but many other people would have used it and the scent from these other people would be in the car.
Same goes for 5a after the apartment was allowed to be let to other families before they had the dogs in.
It's the reason why these vehicles were included. To cover all possibilities believe it or not.
On page 2327, is the report of the exams of the home and some of the vehicles of ROBERT MURAT and, on page 2348, the report of the exam of the car belonging to SERGEY MALINKA, an individual of interest given his relationship with ROBERT MURAT, not having been uncovered, however, anything of a criminal nature.
On pages 2360 to 2371, is the report of the vehicles belonging to LUÌS ANTÒNIO, with whom, also, ROBERT MURAT had an acquaintance. Nothing suspicious was found.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
On 6th August 2007 at about 15.17 a sniffer dog inspection was carried out of the following cars that had been placed for this purpose in the underground car park mentioned previously:
Vehicle n? 1 ? Opel Corsa ? number plate 75-AG-62
Vehicle n? 2 ? Fiat Punto ? number plate 45-49-ER
Vehicle n? 3 ? Peugeot 205 ? number plate RI-96-03
Vehicle n? 4 ? Renault Scenic ? number plate ? 59-DA-27
Vehicle n? 5 ? Skoda Fabia ? number plate 96-26-VE
Vehicle n? 6 ? Volkswagon Transporter ? number plate 44-77-KD
Vehicle n? 7 ? Nissan Patrol ? number plate VH-24-22
Vehicle n? 8 ? Volkswagon Passat ? number plate 57-12-HP
Vehicle n? 9 ? Audi A4 ? number plate 10-91-FP
Vehicle n? 10 ?Renault Kangoo ? number plate 07-50-UI
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm
Vehicle 1: Blue Opel Corsa*- hire car (James Gorrod)
Vehicle 2: Fiat Punto (Ralph Eveleigh – Murat's uncle)
Vehicle 3: Peugot 205 (Robert Murat)
Vehicle 4: Renault Scenic - hire car (The McCanns)
Vehicle 5: Skoda Fabia (Michaela Walczuch)
Vehicle 6: Volkswagen Transporter (Jenny Murat)
Vehicle 7: Nissan Patrol (Luís António)
Vehicle 8: Volkswagen Passat (Luís António)
Vehicle 9: Audi A4 (Sergey Malinka)
Vehicle 10: Renault Kangoo (Luís António)