Madeleine's last movements tracked by the GNR sniffer dogs.

[sadie]

I have lost my source, but I read that during evaluation sniffer dogs were capable of following a scent from a piece of material which had been sealed in a jar, on many different occasions and over an extended period of time.
Sealing in an evidence pouch would be just as effective imo if resealed after each exposure to the dogs.
I am sure the GNR teams would be on the ball about that as part of their training.

I would agree that the blanket is the most likely object to have been used for the dogs.

I doubt Dr McCann would have been able to give the GNR handlers on the 8th a 'towel which had been used to dry Madeleine' for the following reasons:-
They had moved out of the apartment; Madeleine's bedding had been washed by housekeeping so it is highly likely towels had been too.
It is unlikely they would have taken soiled towels with them, it would be highly unlikely they were using the same towels four days later.

Dunno Brietta.

OC doesn't look very upmarket to me.  Would they change towels and sheets every day at such a place?  If they did take the towels then almost certainly they would bundle them together and the families individual scents would be mixed up.

I agree about the four days later.  They would definitely have ben changed by then.

[misty]

I am still of the opinion that the first GNR dogs on the scene were given the pink banket to scent from (although they were only patrol dogs with limited sniffer experience) and the search & rescue dogs were given a towel, as stated by the handlers.
Irrespective of that, the trails both sets of dogs followed don't really provide any clues as to the nature & method of Madeleine's removal from the grounds of the Ocean Club.
However, if skin cells are shed as a human body is moved, does that effectively rule out Smithman & Tannerman who were both carrying uncovered children, but not on the routes trailed, or does cell-shedding cease if someone has been dead for a couple of hours?


As a side issue and off-topic, does anyone know what those 3 hatches on the wall to the right of 5a's front door are for?

[pegasus]

I am still of the opinion that the first GNR dogs on the scene were given the pink banket to scent from (although they were only patrol dogs with limited sniffer experience) and the search & rescue dogs were given a towel, as stated by the handlers.

That's what I thought until very recently, but now I have changed mind and think it is likely the blanket was used by all the dogs you mention, I'll post the reasoning at a later date.

Irrespective of that, the trails both sets of dogs followed don't really provide any clues as to the nature & method of Madeleine's removal from the grounds of the Ocean Club.

I now think all the trails leading away from apartment by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are likely to be trails of the child before kidsclub tea on the 3rd.

However, if skin cells are shed as a human body is moved, does that effectively rule out Smithman & Tannerman who were both carrying uncovered children, but not on the routes trailed, or does cell-shedding cease if someone has been dead for a couple of hours?

I think those particles would be shed even if a person is carried in the way described in those sightings, and regardless of status of person being carried. Therefore I think the trails by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are amongst the indications that neither of those sightings are relevant.

[Eleanor]

That's what I thought until very recently, but now I have changed mind and think it is likely the blanket was used by all the dogs you mention, I'll post the reasoning at a later date. I now think all the trails leading away from apartment by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are likely to be trails of the child before kidsclub tea on the 3rd.I think those particles would be shed even if a person is carried in the way described in those sightings, and regardless of status of person being carried. Therefore I think the trails by Numi Kit Rex and Zarus are amongst the indications that neither of those sightings are relevant.

I agree with most of that, and it is as I have thought.  Still not sure about either of the sightings though.

[Brietta]

Found the following interesting regarding the skills of these dogs, also when one dog lost the scent a different dog was used to pick up from there and follow it to the destination.
If the investigation had been unsuccessful the trail followed by the dogs would have allowed evidence to be gathered which would have led to the conviction.  Quite extraordinary work on their part.
Don't know why the guy only got 16months though, I would have thrown the key away.

I have always thought the GNR dogs had something regarding Madeleine ... we just do not have the ability to work out what it was.


Case Example
On May 13, 2002, a U.S. mail carrier in Philadelphia discovered a package in a mailbox that appeared to be an improvised explosive device. The Philadelphia Police Bomb Squad responded and rendered the device safe.
In a mailbox 1.5 miles away, a similar package was found the following day and rendered safe.
Two days later, human scent was collected with the STU-100 from the remains of these two packages. Starting the dog at one of the mailboxes, a positive indication for scent was given, and the dog began to trail.
After two days of car and pedestrian traffic, the bloodhound was able to follow the trail into a neighborhood where the trail ended. A second dog was started in the neighborhood and identified a house occupied by Preston Lit. The criminal investigation, conducted  separately from the human-scent work, brought the police
to the same location (Meserve and King 2002). Lit pleaded guilty and received a 16-month sentence in federal prison.
http://landofpuregold.com/the-pdfs/humanscent-crime.pdf

I can recommend reading all of the article above, I found it very interesting regarding the training of the different types of dogs and also the fact that they are capable of tracking the main source even if contaminated by other scents.

[pegasus]

...
http://landofpuregold.com/the-pdfs/humanscent-crime.pdf
I can recommend reading all of the article above, I found it very interesting regarding the training of the different types of dogs and also the fact that they are capable of tracking the main source even if contaminated by other scents.

Thanks, brilliant article.

[pegasus]

I agree with most of that, and it is as I have thought.  Still not sure about either of the sightings though.

Those who genuinely seeking the truth, even if coming from opposite places, will find much in common, for there is only one true solution.

[pegasus]

The GNR dog trails were taken seriously by the PJ, as demonstrated when they show JT the trails and point out that the trails indicate that the removal was not along the route she saw a man walking carrying a child.
( Source: JT statement 10 May 2007 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html )

So yes I think the GNR dog trails do rule out the JT sighting being relevant,
and also rule out the Smith sighting being relevant

 

[VIXTE]

The GNR dog trails were taken seriously by the PJ, as demonstrated when they show JT the trails and point out that the trails indicate that the removal was not along the route she saw a man walking carrying a child.
( Source: JT statement 10 May 2007 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html )

So yes I think the GNR dog trails do rule out the JT sighting being relevant,
and also rule out the Smith sighting being relevant

It doesn't rule out the Smiths sighting IMO.
There is a possibility that Madeleine was taken by car ( which stopped or was parked across the road to  the OC reception) and that this car later stopped near the Smiths sighting and the person carrying Madeleine carried on on foot.

Let's speculate that one of the 8 people who are to be questioned had their car parked in the car park where the dogs lost the trail and that they live near the Smiths sighting.. this then would make sense.

Or that someone out of these 8 people had their phone pinging from near OC and then SUDDENLY ( means impossible to do the distance on foot) their phone pinged near the Smiths sighting. This is possible to establish if the OC and the Smiths sighting area are served by different phone towers.
The police would by now know through the phone records if something like this is possible.  We cannot possibly know it because we don't have these phone records.

[pegasus]

It doesn't rule out the Smiths sighting IMO.
There is a possibility that Madeleine was taken by car ( which stopped or was parked across the road to  the OC reception) and that this car later stopped near the Smiths sighting and the person carrying Madeleine carried on on foot.
...

Yes if one insists that the Rex/Zarus trail is of the missing child sometime after arriving home from kidsclub tea, and if one also insists that the Smith sighting is of the missing child, then the scenario you describe is a sensible way to combine those two stages of transport, by adding an intervening stage by vehicle.

I don't think that is what happened. Ok, it's a good way of combining the two assumptions into one scenario which appears to explain both. However I think the two assumptions on which it is built are likely to be incorrect.

[misty]

How can the s&r dogs' interest in 4G be explained? We have no information to support Madeleine ever being in Block 4.

[pegasus]

In a contained-carrying theory what one would expect to see from the GNR dogs is following of recent known trails, and no following of the important trail.

And isn't that what we see with the trails identified by Numi Kit Rex and Xarus ?
Their trails match routes we already know the missing person had followed in the day(s) prior.

[Eleanor]

In a contained-carrying theory what one would expect to see from the GNR dogs is following of recent known trails, and no following of the important trail.

And isn't that what we see with the trails identified by Numi Kit Rex and Xarus ?
Their trails match routes we already know the missing person had followed in the day(s) prior.

That is what I think.  Madeleine had walked that path before, and not just once.

[pegasus]

I think there is big benefit to reading other cases. One can learn many things. For example that when someone drives a car to move something, he may combine the trip with something more mundane, even to pop into a shop for some crisps. Very interesting.

But back to the GNR dog trails, does anyone place any significance on the handler's statement which says that at about 11PM on the 4th, a dog given the scent source to sniff outdoors, went first towards the door? What does this mean? Was it detection of the freshest directional scent trail?

[sadie]

I think there is big benefit to reading other cases. One can learn many things. For example that when someone drives a car to move something, he may combine the trip with something more mundane, even to pop into a shop for some crisps. Very interesting.

But back the the GNR dog trails, does anyone place any significance on the handler's statement which says that at about 11PM on the 4th, a dog given the scent source to sniff outdoors, went first towards the door? What does this mean? Was it detection of the freshest directional scent trail?

Personally, I think he could have gone the one way, or the other.  Equal scents in both directions.  Maybe there was a bit of a delay at the door whilst the door was pulled to, or Madeleine was passed over so more scent there? 

We just dont know enough to judge, do we?



But Ferryman is the expert and others too.  Maybe they can help?