Could the cadaver scent have been planted?

[ferryman]

It is frequently (and rightly!) pointed out that the Renault was hired 3 weeks after Madeleine was abducted.

Here are some more intriguing facts:

1. Of 9 cars (nominally!) "inspected" (and 1 car actually) 7 were owned or driven by people never suspects in the investigation  Why?

2. Madeleine never lived in the villa and never went near the gym.  So why an inspection in either place?

3.  In his summary of all inspections, Mark Harrison acknowledged UK involvement in only certain, specific, searches: the holiday apartments, areas in and around PdL and the Murats' place.

That was it!

Both inspections at the villa and at the gym he summarised (without description) as "PJ Exercises".

And while Harrison did recommend an inspection of vehciles, he recommended, only, that "all cars owned or driven by Murat" should be inspected.

In his summary of searches, Harrison gives no clue who took part in the inspection of vehicles.

Why?

I actually believe I know the answer.

But I shan't be giving any clues on here ...

[gilet]

Studies were done.....found to be present up until 14 months, in that particular study anyway, as we know, there arent many to chose from but think we can conclude it is not true it lasts no longer than one month...

http://www.csst.org/

Articles of interest, residual scent in buildings


there was also the carpet squares study remember? over 65  days IIRC with a high success rate

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

Oh dear.

The Csst study was very clear that the result of one year only applied to areas "in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance." which rules out an apartment which has been cleaned thoroughly many times and has been the home of many different people in the three months since the disappearance.

That study also dates from 1996 and is identified in the introduction as not having delimited all the variables and is only a precursor to a further study which doesn't seem to have been undertaken or reported.

When people have to trawl for such non-scientific tests from almost 20 years ago and the conclusions of those tests do not even back up what they are claiming then they are really showing signs of desperation.

[Redblossom]

Oh dear.

The Csst study was very clear that the result of one year only applied to areas "in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance." which rules out an apartment which has been cleaned thoroughly many times and has been the home of many different people in the three months since the disappearance.

That study also dates from 1996 and is identified in the introduction as not having delimited all the variables and is only a precursor to a further study which doesn't seem to have been undertaken or reported.

When people have to trawl for such non-scientific tests from almost 20 years ago and the conclusions of those tests do not even back up what they are claiming then they are really showing signs of desperation.

No I hadnt noticed the date at all, therefore no desperation on my part. And I didnt have to trawl any more than a few seconds on the net for it. It wasnt offered as a bible or anything written in stone, it does show remnant scent lingers longer than a month, of course if you can prove it cannot, thats a project for you

[Carana]

Studies were done.....found to be present up until 14 months, in that particular study anyway, as we know, there arent many to chose from but think we can conclude it is not true it lasts no longer than one month...

http://www.csst.org/

Articles of interest, residual scent in buildings


there was also the carpet squares study remember? over 65  days IIRC with a high success rate

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

Thanks.

I'd agree with Gilet on the first study, and for the same reasons.


I'm aware of the carpet squares experiment. However, I would find it risky to make any assumptions in terms of Eddie's reactions in PdL.

- Even though the time required for cross-contamination was short and the smell could be detected with a reasonably high rate of accuracy over a period of 65 days in scientific conditions (and for longer in informal conditions), there would seem to be conditions for which there is no evidence to suggest that they applied in PdL.

- The experiment involved carpet squares, i.e., porous material. Eddie did not react to porous material in 5A. Clothes (whichever they actually were) and Cuddlecat (which he initially didn't bark at) from the villa can have other other explanations.

- The control was to use carpet squares absorbing the natural body scent of living humans. The scope did not involve investigating the cross-contamination scent of decomposing substances from a living person.

- By the time they had placed the carpet squares under the bodies, they had been dead for around 2.5 hours.

- The experiment was conducted to avoid contamination, which clearly wasn't the case in PdL. 

Therefore, while there is reasonable accuracy in controlled conditions over that period of time, it does not equate to any conditions that I'm aware of in PdL.

[ferryman]

The point of chief relevence (to PdL) about the carpet squares experiment is that it was driven by the principle of cross-contamination, wholly disregarded by Grime in PdL ...

[Redblossom]

Thanks.

I'd agree with Gilet on the first study, and for the same reasons.


I'm aware of the carpet squares experiment. However, I would find it risky to make any assumptions in terms of Eddie's reactions in PdL.

- Even though the time required for cross-contamination was short and the smell could be detected with a reasonably high rate of accuracy over a period of 65 days in scientific conditions (and for longer in informal conditions), there would seem to be conditions for which there is no evidence to suggest that they applied in PdL.

- The experiment involved carpet squares, i.e., porous material. Eddie did not react to porous material in 5A. Clothes (whichever they actually were) and Cuddlecat (which he initially didn't bark at) from the villa can have other other explanations.

- The control was to use carpet squares absorbing the natural body scent of living humans. The scope did not involve investigating the cross-contamination scent of decomposing substances from a living person.

- By the time they had placed the carpet squares under the bodies, they had been dead for around 2.5 hours.

- The experiment was conducted to avoid contamination, which clearly wasn't the case in PdL. 

Therefore, while there is reasonable accuracy in controlled conditions over that period of time, it does not equate to any conditions that I'm aware of in PdL.

Normal life will never be so controlled to match scientific experiements. Main point was demonstrating the scent lasts more than a month,anything else is speculation.Indeed it would make police look utterly stupid to waste time and money using these dogs after thirty days had elapsed from any said event

[Carana]

Normal life will never be so controlled to match scientific experiements. Main point was demonstrating the scent lasts more than a month,anything else is speculation.Indeed it would make police look utterly stupid to waste time and money using these dogs after thirty days had elapsed from any said event

The residual scent CAN last more than a month, in certain conditions (at least accordng to that experiment).

But their primary purpose is to help locate physical traces of a body. It's not necessarily a waste of time and money to deploy them in case a body had been found somewhere. In this case, they didn't, but they couldn't have known that in advance.

[AnneGuedes]

Normal life will never be so controlled to match scientific experiements. Main point was demonstrating the scent lasts more than a month,anything else is speculation.Indeed it would make police look utterly stupid to waste time and money using these dogs after thirty days had elapsed from any said event

Absolutely. It was Prof Harrison's initiative. He had read the reports of all the police forces. He knew the flat had been rented after Madeleine disappeared. He knew also no body's remains had been left behind in the flat.
Posters should realize that starting to doubt the pertinence of bringing the EVRD is in fact suggesting Prof Harrison MBE didn't behave as the highly respected professional he is.

[ferryman]

Absolutely. It was Prof Harrison's initiative. He had read the reports of all the police forces. He knew the flat had been rented after Madeleine disappeared. He knew also no body's remains had been left behind in the flat.
Posters should realize that starting to doubt the pertinence of bringing the EVRD is in fact suggesting Prof Harrison MBE didn't behave as the highly respected professional he is.

Harrison was handed a brief by the PJ to consider that Madeleine had been "murdered" and worked to it.

He offered to consider other possibilities or scenarios on request.

Right towards the end of his final report, he made plain that he had not reached any definitive conclusion of his own by expressing the opion that (sic) if death has occurred, the most likley possibility is that Madeleine's body was ejected into the sea.

It is (now) obvious that it was Harrison's work in exploring that option that was copiously leaked to the Portuguese press and (by extention) the UK press long before the investigation was archived.

Harrison never formed any firm conclusion of his own about what happened to Madeleine.

That was an Amaral myth and libel (one of many) ...

[AnneGuedes]

Sorry, Ferryman, but he was the one who called the dogs ! I wasn't meaning more.

[ferryman]

What:
Encouraged?? Cuing?

That is defaming Mr Grime with no evidence to support it.

Precisely the accusation Debunker has been throwing at those McCann sceptics.

In what sense are strictly factual statements defamatory?

I don't follow ...

[ferryman]

Sorry, Ferryman, but he was the one who called the dogs ! I wasn't meaning more.

Why do you not think it important to provide context to that recommendation?

[AnneGuedes]

Why do you not think it important to provide context to that recommendation?

Context is certainly important, Ferryman, and has been mentioned many times !
You will have understood that I suggest that it's easier to criticize the police officer than his head but that it's not fair.

[Redblossom]

The residual scent CAN last more than a month, in certain conditions (at least accordng to that experiment).

But their primary purpose is to help locate physical traces of a body. It's not necessarily a waste of time and money to deploy them in case a body had been found somewhere. In this case, they didn't, but they couldn't have known that in advance.

I think if there was a body in any of the flats in Block G in PDL, in July, someone will have had noticed long before
 >@@(*&)

The only reason the dog was deployed there was for possible remnant scent after a removal. Harrison said as much.  If positive, it would have been intelligence.

Searches in the outside environment is different.

[Redblossom]

The point of chief relevence (to PdL) about the carpet squares experiment is that it was driven by the principle of cross-contamination, wholly disregarded by Grime in PdL ...

The carpet squares were contaminated as a direct result of being placed next to a dead body...so what are you on about?