Author Topic: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?  (Read 234838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #390 on: April 04, 2016, 05:29:13 PM »
Post 373

But fair enough - I am too thick!

So that's a no then.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #391 on: April 04, 2016, 05:38:54 PM »
That's what happened. 10 minutes search of the area for any odour by the dogs before any clothes were emptied from the first "living room" box to be examined. Keela examined first for blood and there was no alerts then it was Eddie's turn.

Here's what happened:

Quote
1. Between 23h20 and 23h30 the two dogs were allowed to reconoitre the entire area to guarantee that there were no existing odours - and none were detected by them.

2. Between 23h30 and 23h40 items from the box labelled 'common room' were inspected by the blood dog without result.
- At 23h41 the cadaver dog began its inspection and 'marked' some clothing on the edge of the area. The inspection ended at 23h52 with the clothing having been collected for later direct examination and photographic report.

No gap between completion of the reconnoitre and commencement of the inspection.  Either the clothes were laid out at lightning speed or there was no reconnoitre.

Quote
Coconut island Jersey. I think anyone who said it was a coconut should be investigated. The truth is, they didn't have a clue what it was and collagen ain't found in no coconut.


Question. How does a piece of child’s skull containing 1.6 per cent collagen (which is only found in mammals) turn into a piece of coconut?

Have you actually read the posts of this thread?

Answer. Put a picture of a coconut lampshade on all States Members seats and hey presto! A coconut a la Ian Le Marquand.

Quote
This is the sort of nonsense that States Members, and the general public, are fed by the Home Affairs Minister and expected to believe. This is the same Minister that tried to tell us that 65 children’s teeth fell through a gap in the floorboards at Haut de la Garenne, in the exact same place. So let’s just think about how that must work. A child is walking towards this gap in the floorboards and somebody shouts “don’t get too close to that gap in the floorboard, one or more of your teeth will fall out with root still attached and land on top of all the other one’s down there”. Or the other “explanation” we’ve been given they were left there by the bl--dy tooth fairy!

What nonsense are you referring to?  The report of Wiltshire Police, or the analysis of a technician at the Oxford laboratory who examined jar/6 exhibit and pronounced it wood or coconut, by chance?

Quote
It is high time that the Home Affairs Minister comes to the realisation that the general public are not convinced by tooth fairy stories and pictures of coconuts. We want facts, evidence and scientific data. Lenny Harper has given us these in abundance, Graham Power has given us these in abundance, the Association of Chief Police Officers have given us these in abundance. What have we had in return? A fairy Tale and a photograph! Why didn’t Ian Le Marquand put a photograph of the Child’s Skull or coconut, showing it’s weight, size shape, colour and texture before it left Jersey, and then another photograph of it’s appearance when it ended up at Kew Gardens?


http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2010/05/abracadabra.html

What you want is any excuse to denigrate and malign the McCanns.

Why else would you give a link to that blog?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 05:53:06 PM by ferryman »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #392 on: April 04, 2016, 06:38:16 PM »
I think you need to provide a cite for "protestations that we are all too thick..." Or withdraw that statement.

could you ask blonk to remove his claim for 100% success rates for the dogs as he has failed to provide a cite

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #393 on: April 04, 2016, 06:46:05 PM »
No, I don't know you have an excellent knowledge  of both.

I'm sure jp would agree with that. @)(++(*

the sample was originally identified as part of a childs skull purely by its appearance by a forensic archeologist. It was then sent for carbon dating. This proved impossible due to the low nitrogen content. The technician who drilled the sample who had extensive experience of bone sampling found it did not feel like bone when drilled. I drill human bone most days so understand how bone feels when drilled.  Bone has around 30 % collagen by the way.  The sample had 0.6% nitrogen which is consistent with wood. It was decided from a chemical analysis the sample was not bone but probably wood.

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #394 on: April 04, 2016, 07:15:32 PM »
the sample was originally identified as part of a childs skull purely by its appearance by a forensic archeologist. It was then sent for carbon dating. This proved impossible due to the low nitrogen content. The technician who drilled the sample who had extensive experience of bone sampling found it did not feel like bone when drilled. I drill human bone most days so understand how bone feels when drilled.  Bone has around 30 % collagen by the way.  The sample had 0.6% nitrogen which is consistent with wood. It was decided from a chemical analysis the sample was not bone but probably wood.

Thank you davel.  Even with my grade 5 CSE in general science I an understand that. 

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #395 on: April 04, 2016, 07:34:35 PM »
1. Collagen, or more precisely collagens are a group of proteins found in animal tissues including bones and skin.

2. Proteins contain Nitrogen, a key element in their composition.

3. Collagens are not found in plant tissue.

4. Wood, when dry contains relatively little Nitrogen though the amount will vary. Normally within the 0.1-0.5 % range.

5. The sample from Jersey contains 0.6 %, whilst the expected value from the report would suggest a 1.6% Nitrogen content.

6. Coconut shells are primarily hardened celluloses which are carbohydrates, though could get contaminated by other materials.

7. The sample tested was very small apparently. I would like to know how many tests were conducted and one test by itself is insufficient to produce justifiable conclusions.

8. I note that the final 'comment' was that the sample was probably wood, i.e. it was speculation.

N.B. The samples(s) were subjected to heat. This could cause substantial alteration in  their chemical composition.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 07:44:21 PM by stephen25000 »

Offline Carana

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #396 on: April 04, 2016, 07:36:34 PM »
This reminds me of something...

Ah yes!

The initial 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.


Where did you get this "100% match" from?

I actually read Bennett's 60 Reasons booklet.

And TOTALLY gave up at this point:

"4. The forensic evidence of the DNA of blood found in the living room of the McCanns’ apartment, and in the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns, analysed by the Forensic Science Service here in England

There have been claims and counter-claims about the significance of the forensic evidence obtained by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) in Birmingham on samples of blood or body fluids found in the McCanns’ apartment and in the boot of the car they hired. The McCanns and their spokesmen have claimed that the FSS results did not confirm that it was Madeleine’s dead body in the apartment and in the car. So let us look carefully at what the FSS found.

In Apartment 5A, the apartment the McCanns rented for the week, Eddie, the 'cadaver dog' and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly - and independently from each other - marked precisely the same location, behind the sofa in the living room (which had been moved by the McCanns from its original location).  The tiles where Keela scented the blood were carefully removed, first analysed by a Portuguese laboratory, and then sent to FSS. The blood found by Keela was by then degraded, quite probably, it was said, due to cleaning agents having been used to clean the area where the dogs detected the corpse scent and the blood.

As a result, the FSS lab was able to check only 5 markers from that site. Each one of those 5 markers matched Madeleine's DNA. Or, to re-phrase this a different way, there were no markers that could not have come from Madeleine, so the idea that it was her blood could most certainly not be ruled out.

Far more conclusive evidence was found in the Renault Scenic, registration no. 59-DA-27 - the car hired by the McCanns. Eddie, the 'cadaver dog', and Keela, the 'blood-hound’, both clearly marked the same car and the same location within the car. The blood found there by Keela (beneath the carpeting in the well of the car) was also degraded. But the FSS lab was able this time, on its first analysis, to find 19 markers, of which 15 markers matched Madeleine's DNA - again, meaning that there were no markers within these 15 that could not have come from Madeleine.  With 15 markers out of 19 all matching Madeleine’s DNA, that would give analysts 99.9% confidence that the blood samples were from Madeleine. The DNA of the degraded blood was found not to match with the DNA of the twins, Sean and Amelie, a further indication that the blood was Madeleine’s.  These were the initial results that the FSS initially communicated to senior investigating officer Gonçalo Amaral and his team.

The law differs from country to country as to how many out of an individual’s 19 or 20 DNA ‘markers’ are needed by the courts to prove that any DNA sample comes from that individual. Many countries accept 15 markers out of 19 as sufficient proof. Under Portuguese law, however, the courts require all 19 markers to be confirmed. This was what is called ‘Low Copy Number’ DNA and so all 19 markers could not be obtained.

We might add here that when the British police cross-check the DNA of a suspect with its database (said to consist of 2.5 million people) of people who have been arrested on suspicion of a crime, they use only 10 markers out of 19 in order to establish a DNA ‘match’.

The scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting two decades ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, said however that using 10 markers to obtain a sufficiently reliable ‘match’ was insufficient proof. He went on to state that 15 markers would provide sufficient evidence to be conclusive. He said: “The current DNA database uses 10 distinct markers to obtain a match and this means there is still a residual risk of a false match. They should use about 15 markers; 15 markers would close the possibility that the match from a crime scene sample is genuine but a fluke”.

To find 15 out of Madeleine’s 19 markers present means that the chances that the traces of blood in the hired car came from anyone other than Madeleine were fewer than only 1 in 1,000.

The key point to be made is this. These initial FSS results, on their own, showed a better than 99.9% chance that the blood in the McCanns’ hired car was Madeleine’s. For some experts, and under Portuguese law, 15 markers out of 19 - bearing in mind the high level of proof required in a criminal trial - stops just short of providing absolute proof that the blood is that person’s. But we must take these strongly indicative results (with all 5 markers in one sample and 15 in another that could not have come from Madeleine) together with all the other evidence in this case. We can surely say with confidence that the chance of those 15 markers belonging to someone other than Madeleine is next-to-nothing, especially when we take into account other significant forensic and circumstantial evidence. These initial DNA results, then, amount to more evidence in the case pointing very strongly in the direction of Madeleine being dead in her holiday apartment on 3rd May 2007, the day she ‘disappeared’, and then her body being transported in the Renault Scenic at least three weeks later.       

In a case reported in October this year, a killer was convicted thanks to relative's DNA. The Forensic Science Service and police used ‘familial searching’ to uncover a close relative of Craig Harman, from Surrey, who had a criminal conviction and was on the DNA database. The relative's profile matched the DNA on the brick by 16 out of 20 points. This led police to Harman, whose DNA gave a perfect match. He eventually confessed to the drunken act of violence.

It must be said, however, that this first analysis, given to the Portuguese and Leicestershire detectives in June, was overridden a month later when the FSS issued a more detailed report. By now, as the former senior investigating officer Gonçalo Amaral confirms in his book, political interference in the case had begun, with successful attempts being made to get the FSS to water down their initial conclusions. By July, the initial samples had been re-tested and were now found to contain 37 markers, or ‘alleles’, not just the original 19. The sample appeared to have been contaminated by staff of the FSS laboratory.  Though there  were now reported to be 37 ‘markers’, there were still, of course, 15 that were a match to Madeleine’s DNA. That fact that the FSS appear to have contaminated the sample does not negate the match. It simply makes it somewhat less certain that the blood was Madeleine’s.

By the time they issued their more detailed report, the FSS said that they were only able to confirm that the results of the analysis were ‘indicative’ that the blood found was Madeleine’s.  They later added that the results were ‘too complex for meaningful analysis’.  We need to bear in mind that whilst the Portuguese police have released some FSS analyses and statements, they have not yet released others to the public, including the reports of their first tests, which gave the strongest indications that the blood was Madeleine’s. The leading Portuguese detective on the case is clear that intense political pressure was successfully brought on the FSS to modify its earlier results, whilst the leading British detective on the case, Stuart Prior, was overheard to be ‘furious’ with the FSS when he learnt of their watered-down opinion. It seems he also believed that there had been political interference to secure a less conclusive result. "


- I hate to say it, but I and you probably share 5-6 alleles with Madeleine as well... so you can't be excluded from having been in that flat without good reason.

- Since when does 15/19, let alone 15/37 = 99.9%?

- No official report states 17/19.

- The UK uses 10 markers (a check for 20 alleles) for forensic purposes. They found 15 alleles which coincided with Madeleine's in the boot, all of which could have come from her parents). A marker in the sense used means 2 alleles (genetic components) at a marker point. PT uses 15 markers (a check for 30 alleles).

- There were not 37 markers. They were alleles from a mixed sample of between 3-5 people found in the same sample, again which could have been a combination of her parents' DNA.


« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 07:41:55 PM by Carana »

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #397 on: April 04, 2016, 07:45:28 PM »
I was going off the Operation Rectangle (Wiltshire) and the BDO reports.

If anyone is really interested in the lab analyses, perhaps they could submit an FOI request for them.

Although we very often disagree, as far as I know I don't think that Stephen is into wild conspiracy theories.

Thank you Carana.

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #398 on: April 04, 2016, 08:21:48 PM »
Thank you Stephen - much appreciated. 

1. Collagen, or more precisely collagens are a group of proteins found in animal tissues including bones and skin.

2. Proteins contain Nitrogen, a key element in their composition.

3. Collagens are not found in plant tissue.

4. Wood, when dry contains relatively little Nitrogen though the amount will vary. Normally within the 0.1-0.5 % range.

5. The sample from Jersey contains 0.6 %, whilst the expected value from the report would suggest a 1.6% Nitrogen content.

The sample was measured as containing 0.6% nitrogen.  Not far from the 0.1 - 0.5 range.  If it were buried in nitrogen rich soil this could account for the difference.  (As a gardener using wood chip mulch can cause nitrogen depletion).

6. Coconut shells are primarily hardened celluloses which are carbohydrates, though could get contaminated by other materials.

7. The sample tested was very small apparently. I would like to know how many tests were conducted and one test by itself is insufficient to produce justifiable conclusions. 

I gather the sample used weighed 440mg.

8. I note that the final 'comment' was that the sample was probably wood, i.e. it was speculation. 

The report said it was not bone and was probably wood.  Question - is coconut husk wood?

N.B. The samples(s) were subjected to heat. This could cause substantial alteration in  their chemical composition.
.  The report said that a small amount of the sample was combusted as a way of measuring the nitrogen content.

Thank you Stephen.   

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #399 on: April 04, 2016, 09:12:09 PM »
1. Collagen, or more precisely collagens are a group of proteins found in animal tissues including bones and skin.

2. Proteins contain Nitrogen, a key element in their composition.

3. Collagens are not found in plant tissue.

4. Wood, when dry contains relatively little Nitrogen though the amount will vary. Normally within the 0.1-0.5 % range.

5. The sample from Jersey contains 0.6 %, whilst the expected value from the report would suggest a 1.6% Nitrogen content.

6. Coconut shells are primarily hardened celluloses which are carbohydrates, though could get contaminated by other materials.

7. The sample tested was very small apparently. I would like to know how many tests were conducted and one test by itself is insufficient to produce justifiable conclusions.

8. I note that the final 'comment' was that the sample was probably wood, i.e. it was speculation.

N.B. The samples(s) were subjected to heat. This could cause substantial alteration in  their chemical composition.
#
the final comment included..it was not bone...pretty definite..

simple test that COULD HAVE been done to differentiate between wood or bone....Eddie the wonderdog....I'm surprised no one thought of it...perhaps he simply isn't reliable enough

Offline mercury

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #400 on: April 04, 2016, 09:15:26 PM »
Cadaver dogs are used for "missing persons" who might be dead
If a) one alerts and b) the person is missing its intelligence at the least..thats what they tell us..ie a strong possibility that the person is not just missing but deceased...not to be ignored as is promoted in here by some

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #401 on: April 04, 2016, 09:22:49 PM »
Cadaver dogs are used for "missing persons" who might be dead
If a) one alerts and b) the person is missing its intelligence at the least..thats what they tell us..ie a strong possibility that the person is not just missing but deceased...not to be ignored as is promoted in here by some

cite for strong possibility...its just your opinion...and wrong IMO

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #402 on: April 04, 2016, 09:25:43 PM »
Cadaver dogs are used for "missing persons" who might be dead
If a) one alerts and b) the person is missing its intelligence at the least..thats what they tell us..ie a strong possibility that the person is not just missing but deceased...not to be ignored as is promoted in here by some

Does 'eddie' alert only to cadaver odour?  Or to other things as well?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #403 on: April 04, 2016, 09:31:38 PM »
What I find strange is that the coconut was not looked at under a microscope.......histology...That would have provided a  100% answer.

Offline mercury

Re: So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?
« Reply #404 on: April 04, 2016, 09:32:24 PM »
Does 'eddie' alert only to cadaver odour?  Or to other things as well?

Semen and blood I read...taking PDL case...no semen or blood, only in flat of missing person? What are the chances