So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?

[blonk]

There was an initial report of 1.6% N (a correlate for collagen) somewhere, but that wasn't the final corroborated result.

This reminds me of something...

Ah yes!

The initial reported finding of a '100% match' between the body fluid samples first detected by Eddie and Keela - and Madeleine's DNA.   

But of course that wasn't the final 'corroborated' result.

[Jean-Pierre]

This reminds me of something...

Ah yes!

The initial reported finding of a '100% match' between the body fluid samples first detected by Eddie and Keela - and Madeleine's DNA.   

But of course that wasn't the final 'corroborated' result.

Of course.  Who could possibly find the considered judgement and report of an experienced forensic scientist more credible than that of a tv report by an overexcited journalist? 

Incidentally, why have you put "corroborated" in inverted commas?

[Lace]

The continuing attack on Martin Grime and the indications of the dogs AGAIN, merely reinforce the lack of evidence of abduction, and therefore the need by some people to continue to pursue Grime.

Whatever, the fragment was in jersey, contamination from other sources could easily have occurred, including from human remains.

blonk brought Jersey up.

Contamination from human remains,  really?    They dug up the bit of coconut there was nothing else with it was there?

Eddie also alerted in other places where nothing was found.

I'm sorry but when you go digging and digging all over the place you are likely to find ancient bones or what ever.

Maybe they should dig up the foundations of 5a,  there may be ancient bones under the apartment.

[Carana]

The continuing attack on Martin Grime and the indications of the dogs AGAIN, merely reinforce the lack of evidence of abduction, and therefore the need by some people to continue to pursue Grime.

Whatever, the fragment was in jersey, contamination from other sources could easily have occurred, including from human remains.

Of course, contamination could have occurred, whether from a human or porcine source.

My question is why some people continue to insist that JAR/6 was a fragment of a human skull...

[Carana]

This reminds me of something...

Ah yes!

The initial reported finding of a '100% match' between the body fluid samples first detected by Eddie and Keela - and Madeleine's DNA.   

But of course that wasn't the final 'corroborated' result.

ETA: as opposed to over-excited live media coverage based on what appears to have been a leak of dubious substance.

Are you referring to the Scenic?

If so, for my personal edification, could you please provide even an initial official forensic report that ever stated a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA?

[stephen25000]

Of course, contamination could have occurred, whether from a human or porcine source.

My question is why some people continue to insist that JAR/6 was a fragment of a human skull...

I would be interested in seeing the results as I do have knowledge of analytical techniques.

I note the 'sample' was not confirmed 100% as being of plant origin.

[pathfinder73]

Cadaver dogs can tell us where an underwater body may be;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30431322

Get Barra on the case. "The note “Madeleine Beth McCann”. It contained  “a description below of how she had been dumped in the Barragem da Bravura reservoir, nine miles from the holiday resort.”

Barragem da Bravura.

[ferryman]

I object to being called dishonest. I have never said that Eddie alerted to this fragment. In a previous discussion I asked for a cite that he did, and I never got one, just as I have asked again and haven't got one. The solution is in the hands of those who say he did, just give the cite.

Can't find any evidence that you ever have.

So I apologise for the suggestion that you might have.

Others certainly have.

[Jean-Pierre]

I would be interested in seeing the results as I do have knowledge of analytical techniques.

I note the 'sample' was not confirmed 100% as being of plant origin.

Of course you do Stephen.  Among your numerous other 'expertise'.

Try reading the report that has already been cited - I for one would be fascinated to see your 'expert analysis' 

[stephen25000]

Of course you do Stephen.  Among your numerous other 'expertise'.

Try reading the report that has already been cited - I for one would be fascinated to see your 'expert analysis' 

Your sole ability appears to type sarcastic posts.

However, when I type on a subject, I do have more than a smattering knowledge of the subject.

Are you able to provide the link to the report ? ?

[Jean-Pierre]

Your sole ability appears to type sarcastic posts.

However, when I type on a subject, I do have more than a smattering knowledge of the subject.

Are you able to provide the link to the report ? ?

Posts 332, 336,337,338,339 of this thread.  Wiltshire report.  From memory the relevant bit is chapter 5.

Most people on here are perfectly capable, but simply post their thoughts and let others make up their own minds as to the quality of analysis.  You are pretty much alone in presaging your thoughts by grandly claiming your expertise in analysis, maths, chemistry or whatever.  So let's see your analysis and then members here can make up their own minds as to whether it's any good.   

[jassi]

Posts 332, 336,337,338,339 of this thread.  Wiltshire report.  From memory the relevant bit is chapter 5.

Most people on here are perfectly capable, but simply post their thoughts and let others make up their own minds as to the quality of analysis.  You are pretty much alone in presaging your thoughts by grandly claiming your expertise in analysis, maths, chemistry or whatever.  So let's see your analysis and then members here can make up their own minds as to whether it's any good.   

I rather think you are confusing him with someone else on here   

[G-Unit]

Can't find any evidence that you ever have.

So I apologise for the suggestion that you might have.

Others certainly have.

Thank you.

[stephen25000]

Posts 332, 336,337,338,339 of this thread.  Wiltshire report.  From memory the relevant bit is chapter 5.

Most people on here are perfectly capable, but simply post their thoughts and let others make up their own minds as to the quality of analysis.  You are pretty much alone in presaging your thoughts by grandly claiming your expertise in analysis, maths, chemistry or whatever.  So let's see your analysis and then members here can make up their own minds as to whether it's any good.   

I am pretty much alone in expressing what I do ?

Tell that to your compatriots.

My analysis would only be of relevance to those that have a good grounding/knowledge in Chemistry and Biology.

Do you have that jp, or are you like many your fellows, just a googler ?

I will look at the report.

Would you like to give your 'expert' analysis of it as well please ? 

[stephen25000]

I rather think you are confusing him with someone else on here   

I wonder who you mean Jassi ? *&*%£