A Question Regarding Forensics.

[faithlilly]

he has spoken but you dont seem to understand what he said...he used the word suggestive not confirms...he doesnt say how suggestive....


the FACT is Grime has not said the alerts confirm the presence of cadaver as you seem to think

As Madeleine  had lived in 5a for six days it is quite possible that any forensics harvested would not categorically prove a cadaver had been there. This was the problem the PJ had.

[Mr Gray]

As Madeleine  had lived in 5a for six days it is quite possible that any forensics harvested would not categorically prove a cadaver had been there. This was the problem the PJ had.

So no confirmation of cadaver as you have claimed

[misty]

As Madeleine  had lived in 5a for six days it is quite possible that any forensics harvested would not categorically prove a cadaver had been there. This was the problem the PJ had.

IMO Grime should have asked for scent pads to be placed in the wardrobe area where Eddie alerted to absorb any odours for testing. The wardrobe should also have been dismantled & preserved for future scientific advances. Eddie should also have been given the opportunity to inspect the area behind & under the wardrobe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4581006/       an interesting read.

[Robittybob1]

So no confirmation of cadaver as you have claimed

Cite please?

[Mr Gray]

Cite please?

io

How can I provide a cite for something that has not happened... Grime has not confirmed it... And he's the expert... faith seems to think he has... He obviously  hasnt
faith has provided her cite... And it confirmed  nothing

[Carana]

When discussing the cadaver dog alerts in 5a we are constantly told by supporters that any alerts are worthless without forensic confirmation of death. Can I ask what kind of forensic corroboration do they believe would categorically confirm death if the missing child had lived in the apartment for six days before her disappearance ?

Not sure what you mean, Faith, particularly by the last part. You're not from the "death-on-Sunday" or "cloned" brigade, are you?

[faithlilly]

Not sure what you mean, Faith, particularly by the last part. You're not from the "death-on-Sunday" or "cloned" brigade, are you?

Perish the thought Carana. The point I am making is that even if forensic evidence such as blood was found in the apartment a simple explanation for that is available ie Madeleine lived there for a short time. In short forensics have very little value either way in this case.

[Robittybob1]

io

How can I provide a cite for something that has not happened... Grime has not confirmed it... And he's the expert... faith seems to think he has... He obviously  hasnt
faith has provided her cite... And it confirmed  nothing

It was the "as you have claimed" bit that I wanted a cite for.  You accused someone of making a claim and didn't give a cite for it.

[faithlilly]

 I am simply pointing out, as I have already done, that forensic evidence would not prove whether or not a cadaver had lain in the apartment. That was part of the PJ’s problem and could indeed have worked in the McCanns favour.

[Mr Gray]

I am simply pointing out, as I have already done, that forensic evidence would not prove whether or not a cadaver had lain in the apartment. That was part of the PJ’s problem and could indeed have worked in the McCanns favour.

It doesn't alter the fact that the, alerts are not evidence of death in the apartment unless corroborated...

[Robittybob1]

I am simply pointing out, as I have already done, that forensic evidence would not prove whether or not a cadaver had lain in the apartment. That was part of the PJ’s problem and could indeed have worked in the McCanns favour.

So are you admitting GA jumped the gun with his claims simply because he had no evidence to back it up?  OK the SC can say he was entitled to his opinion, but it always sounded like he was presenting it as a fact not an opinion.

[Carana]

Perish the thought Carana. The point I am making is that even if forensic evidence such as blood was found in the apartment a simple explanation for that is available ie Madeleine lived there for a short time. In short forensics have very little value either way in this case.

Ok. (Sigh of relief LOL).

Hmmm. No, I don't think that forensics would necessarily have had no value - it would depend on what was found and where, IMO.

My perspective is whether she could have died in that flat (whoever was responsible). For all anyone knows, it could have been a panicked burglar, for example.

Even if a speck of blood with a 100% match to M's profile had been found somewhere (which it wasn't), that could be of interest... or perhaps not, depending on where it was, and how much.

A blood spatter (which doesn't correspond to reality, despite a site's link with those words) all over the walls and / or ceiling or blobs in some inexcplicable places would be a different matter.

If there had been any suspicious decomposing biological material of any type, with a full DNA profile, then that would be a different matter as well, obviously, and would merit careful forensic analysis.

As it happens, there wasn't.

That leaves unexplained dog alerts. Without any clarification as to Eddie's "training parameters", no one knows what he actually reacted to. Personally, I find the term "cadaver" to potentially be misleading as "human decomposition" might have been a more accurate term.

The flat had been let out up until the week prior to the dogs' inspection and their (ETA occupants) statements aren't in the files.

Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, according to Grime, but he makes no such assertion concerning Eddie. Is it, or is it not, possible that Eddie reacted to the lingering smell of, e.g., a bloodied bandaid left for a week in the flat, but removed prior to the inspection? If there was no physical trace left, then Keela wouldn't react.

If the block had a plumbing crawl-space, where would it be located? Was that ever checked out?

Lots of questions, but no answers for the moment.

[John]

Topic please...TY

[Robittybob1]

So are you admitting GA jumped the gun with his claims simply because he had no evidence to back it up?  OK the SC can say he was entitled to his opinion, but it always sounded like he was presenting it as a fact not an opinion.

Can statements be analysed so accurately they themselves become forensic evidence, like forensic voice analysis, or forensic word analysis?

[Robittybob1]

Can statements be analysed so accurately they themselves become forensic evidence, like forensic voice analysis, or forensic word analysis?

Peter Hyatt does a similar technique.  I suppose it could be sufficient to get a guilty person to confess at times.  At least it isn't being nasty.  I take my hat off to anyone who can do that  consistently.