UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Redblossom on September 27, 2013, 11:34:49 AM
-
Amaral says Madeleine died in the apartment and Mr Gordon's shaving cut is a (plausible) alternative explanation of the dog alert.
if you cut yourself shaving do you normally go stand behnd the sofa at the window?
@)(++(*
So both dogs alerted there, what about the other alerts in the apartment and outside by Eddie, confirmed as NOT blood? Because Keela did not alert there. Rhetorical question, no need to answer
-
if you cut yourself shaving do you normally go stand behnd the sofa at the window?
@)(++(*
So both dogs alerted there, what about the other alerts in the apartment and outside by Eddie, confirmed as NOT blood? Because Keela did not alert there. Rhetorical question, no need to answer
Try reading the gospel of your guru, Martin Grime.
The place where a cadaver dog alerts is not necessarily the source of the scent.
Grime says that ...
-
Try reading the gospel of your guru, Martin Grime.
The place where a cadaver dog alerts is not necessarily the source of the scent.
Grime says that ...
Floundering again...thats exactly the SPOT where Keela marked for blood....nothing to do with the cadaver dog alert in the area
@)(++(*
This has nothing at all to do with Eddies alerts
So do YOU go stand behind your sofa when youre bleeding all over the place from a shaving cut?
And no Martin Grime is not my guru in any way shape or form, he is a professional and experienced dog handler, and I would take HIS word over yours any day OBVIOUSLY
-
if you cut yourself shaving do you normally go stand behnd the sofa at the window?
@)(++(*
So both dogs alerted there, what about the other alerts in the apartment and outside by Eddie, confirmed as NOT blood? Because Keela did not alert there. Rhetorical question, no need to answer
Who says the furniture was arranged in the same way then?
My understanding was that he had a bad cut that kept bleeding. Please correct me if i am wrong.
-
Who says the furniture was arranged in the same way then?
My understanding was that he had a bad cut that kept bleeding. Please correct me if i am wrong.
You are wrong.
There you have been corrected.
-
Who says the furniture was arranged in the same way then?
My understanding was that he had a bad cut that kept bleeding. Please correct me if i am wrong.
However furniture was arranged and pray tell why it would be rearranged! Someone with a shaving cut that led to blood dripping in the floor will have left more blood dripping in the floor elsewhere ESPECIALLY the bathroom but none was found and more importantly probably wouldnt have similar dna markers to Madeleine Mcann! get real, its a poor excuse for what Keela found by some who think it MEANS something sinister so have to get an excuse for it.....thing is Madeleine may well have deposited her blood innocently in that spot!
-
Floundering again...thats exactly the SPOT where Keela marked for blood....nothing to do with the cadaver dog alert in the area
@)(++(*
This has nothing at all to do with Eddies alerts
So do YOU go stand behind your sofa when youre bleeding all over the place from a shaving cut?
And no Martin Grime is not my guru in any way shape or form, he is a professional and experienced dog handler, and I would take HIS word over yours any day OBVIOUSLY
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.
Martin Grime
-
What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.
Martin Grime
You are either dim or being a joker....that refers entirely to the CADAVER DOG and cadaver odour.....it does not refer to Keela, the blood dog, or blood or her findings in a SPECIFIC SPOT,where forensics are and were found
keela always reacts to the spot where blood IS so your comments about odour coming from elsewhere are in this case totally null and void, still do carry on confusing......
-
You are either dim or being a joker....that refers entirely to the CADAVER DOG and cadaver odour.....it does not refer to Keela, the blood dog, or blood or her findings in a SPECIFIC SPOT,where forensics are and were found
keela always reacts to the spot where blood IS so your comments about odour coming from elsewhere are in this case totally null and void, still do carry on confusing......
Strange.
Grime says nothing about cadaver scent.
That's your assumption.
How many more prevarications will there be?
-
Strange.
Grime says nothing about cadaver scent.
That's your assumption.
How many more prevarications will there be?
Now I KNOW you are a joker as in that quote Grime was specifically talking about Eddie the cadaver dogs alert in the parents bedroom, diredtly after he had just done so, which was NOT a blood alert....something you MUST know ERGO who is prevaricating obfuscatng lying and dishing out misinformation? Here? YOU 100% per cent!
>@@(*&)
-
You are wrong.
There you have been corrected.
How do you know? Were you there when the man who cut himself badly whilst shaving walked around?
-
How do you know? Were you there when the man who cut himself badly whilst shaving walked around?
Have you ever seen anyone who has cut themselves shaving walk around a flat, house or apartment trailing blood at every step? I imagine that in excess of 99% of such accidents happen in the bathroom, where the person will have immediate access to the tissue paper needed to stem such a cut.
Yes, it's feasible that the odd drip could happen (it hasn't ever happened to me, as I've always had a tissue on my face immediately) but in the circumstances this would look remarkably coincidental once again that someone just happens to cut themselves in the McCann apartment and none of the others (no other dog alerts?) in the weeks before their visit.
Coincidences stop being coincidences after a while.
-
Have you ever seen anyone who has cut themselves shaving walk around a flat, house or apartment trailing blood at every step? I imagine that in excess of 99% of such accidents happen in the bathroom, where the person will have immediate access to the tissue paper needed to stem such a cut.
Yes, it's feasible that the odd drip could happen (it hasn't ever happened to me, as I've always had a tissue on my face immediately) but in the circumstances this would look remarkably coincidental once again that someone just happens to cut themselves in the McCann apartment and none of the others (no other dog alerts?) in the weeks before their visit.
however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood.
(Paul Anthony Gordon)
Coincidences stop being coincidences after a while.
They do.
When will the Portuguese judiciary stop giving Team Amaral the benefit of the doubt?
-
Have you ever seen anyone who has cut themselves shaving walk around a flat, house or apartment trailing blood at every step? I imagine that in excess of 99% of such accidents happen in the bathroom, where the person will have immediate access to the tissue paper needed to stem such a cut.
Yes, it's feasible that the odd drip could happen (it hasn't ever happened to me, as I've always had a tissue on my face immediately) but in the circumstances this would look remarkably coincidental once again that someone just happens to cut themselves in the McCann apartment and none of the others (no other dog alerts?) in the weeks before their visit.
however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood.
(Paul Anthony Gordon)
Coincidences stop being coincidences after a while.
They do.
When will the Portuguese judiciary stop giving Team Amaral the benefit of the doubt?
Yeah - blood doesn't drip through tissue, we've done this one to death before as well. You just have an endless supply of myths of your own that you trot out at every opportunity HB.
-
For information. This is a new thread.
-
For information. This is a new thread.
@)(++(*
Good and thank you and good night
-
I do not understand the reliance placed on finding blood from an unidentified person in a flat once used weeks before by a family and used for years before by a different set of families as it was a holiday let.
People bleed. Blood spots are probably everywhere. Finding blood without DNA is of no value to an investigation unless there is a pattern to it (which in this case there was not.)
Welcome to the board.
I agree.
-
I do not understand the reliance placed on finding blood from an unidentified person in a flat once used weeks before by a family and used for years before by a different set of families as it was a holiday let.
People bleed. Blood spots are probably everywhere. Finding blood without DNA is of no value to an investigation unless there is a pattern to it (which in this case there was not.)
Welcome Saepe.
The absence of blood is more important than it's presence in this case. Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in the bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he has detected the scent of cadaver.
-
I always thought that they found some sort of trace molecular substance / DNA and couldn't even give a categorical report on what it was - ie saliva blood, skin etc let alone whose it was
The way the discussions go on sometimes about blood is reminiscent of the " blood Splatter " photo that every one got excited about that looked like some sort of gory murder scene from a horror flic with blood dripping between floorboards !!
This was a holiday rental that the dogs visited weeks after the event - even to the extent that other residents had stayed there.
I mean if Maddy had been violently killed that had resulted in this type of blood splatter the case would have been fairly simple
-
Welcome Saepe.
The absence of blood is more important than it's presence in this case. Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in the bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he has detected the scent of cadaver.
You forgot to mention that reacting to tissues used to clean up after sex are also acceptable interpretations of his reactions, according to Grime.
-
You forgot to mention that reacting to tissues used to clean up after sex are also acceptable interpretations of his reactions, according to Grime.
From Martin Grime's rogatory:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
'Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.
-
From Martin Grime's rogatory:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
That quote concerns Keela, my comment concerned Eddie (in the light of Faith's comment).
-
What i find odd about the dogs reaction is the McCann's reaction to them.
I believe most parents of a missing child having been told that trained dogs detected blood and cadaver odour in the area where the child went missing would believe those findings and be devastated believing their child was dead.
However the McCann's went into full on legal defence mode and attempted to dismiss the dogs right away.
They got their legal defence in first when you would imagine most parents would be of the opinion they were looking for a killer and the body of their child.
It always seems to be in cases of missing people that the family try to dismiss them when it is family members themselves who are guilty or suspected.
Funny that.
-
however there was one occasion when I cut myself shaving in the bathroom of the apartment. I would say that the cut bled for about 45 minutes and that it took some time until the cut stopped bleeding, during which period I walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood.
(Paul Anthony Gordon)
Mr Gordon has either a strange perception of time or is haemophiliac.
-
Where did you get that idea from?
Logic. But there's no proof that scent comes from the person who bled nor comes from the person who disappeared from the flat.
-
You forgot to mention that reacting to tissues used to clean up after sex are also acceptable interpretations of his reactions, according to Grime.
This fixed idea on sex tissues is amazing, Carana. There was no tissue of any kind in the bedroom corner. But walls and porous painting on the wall.
I can't understand why people should have sex and tissues only in this flat.
-
Or has low vitamin K, or is on anti-coagulents such as warfarin or heparin.
People on both sides of this argument always assume that they have enough information to make a valid decision.
If Mr Gordon was on Warfarin, then he would easily have bled for 45 minutes.
It is little missed possibilities like this that lead to people claiming their beliefs as knowledge- and this happens frequently.
The same applies to Aspirin, SS. Bruise easy, bleed plenty, I know from being on Aspirin for years.
-
This fixed idea on sex tissues is amazing, Carana. There was no tissue of any kind in the bedroom corner. But walls and porous painting on the wall.
I can't understand why people should have sex and tissues only in this flat.
The fixed idea amongst the initial PJ team that Eddie only reacted to cadavers has always amazed me. Some people now reluctantly agree that he also reacts to blood, but still have trouble with the idea that he can react to other odours of decomposition, which may not involve a cadaver.
-
Let me guess your reply:
Eddie displays a behaviour
It is interpreted by a handler
Keela displays a behaviour
It is interpreted by a handler
The two behaviours together have in the past indicated cadaver odour
Therefore there was cadaver odour present.
Can you see the flaw in the logic?
Tell me Saepe have you been 'flown' in specifically, a la Gerry McCann, to perhaps help 'neutralise' some rather tricky points as your appearance here does seem rather more than 'fortuitous ?
-
Let me guess your reply:
Eddie displays a behaviour
It is interpreted by a handler
Keela displays a behaviour
It is interpreted by a handler
The two behaviours together have in the past indicated cadaver odour
Therefore there was cadaver odour present.
Can you see the flaw in the logic?
Good post.
Even setting the leap in logic aside, the sniffer dog acolytes still have to face up to the rather inconvenient (for them!) fact that samples were taken from places where the dogs indicated, and after being subjected to state of the art testing, the samples provided nothing of evidential value. I do wonder whether, if it wasn't for the dogs, Amaral would have quite so many sycophantic followers. I'd guess not, which is quite disturbing, when you think about it.
-
Good post.
Even setting the leap in logic aside, the sniffer dog acolytes still have to face up to the rather inconvenient (for them!) fact that samples were taken from places where the dogs indicated, and after being subjected to state of the art testing, the samples provided nothing of evidential value. I do wonder whether, if it wasn't for the dogs, Amaral would have quite so many sycophantic followers. I'd guess not, which is quite disturbing, when you think about it.
If he hadn't written a book, narrated a "documentary", and given hundreds of media interviews, would anyone even remember him?
-
If Mr Gordon was on Warfarin
He would use an electric device to shave.
-
Good post.
Even setting the leap in logic aside, the sniffer dog acolytes still have to face up to the rather inconvenient (for them!) fact that samples were taken from places where the dogs indicated, and after being subjected to state of the art testing, the samples provided nothing of evidential value. I do wonder whether, if it wasn't for the dogs, Amaral would have quite so many sycophantic followers. I'd guess not, which is quite disturbing, when you think about it.
Don't forget the other sniffer dogs, the ones that came right after the disappearance.
-
He would use an electric device to shave.
Why would he?
My hubby hates electric razors! I think many older gents prefer the razor, I may be wrong?
-
Please show me a syllogistic answer that leads from Eddie behaving to a scientifically valid identification of cadaver odour.
Read the threads on that subject, especially the Debunker's posts !
-
Why would he?
My hubby hates electric razors! I think many older gents prefer the razor, I may be wrong?
They don't shave as well, but the risk of cutting your skin is null.
-
I am not that interested in the dogs- I dismissed them for scientific and formal reasons years ago.
What I am saying is that there is no logical syllogism that supports your statement "Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in this bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he has detected the scent of cadaver."
Cadaverine scent originates from many other substances other than a cadaver. Thus to introduce the notion that the only reasonable explanation as to why the dogs alerted was because they detected a body is wholly incorrect.
-
Cadaverine scent originates from many other substances other than a cadaver. Thus to introduce the notion that the only reasonable explanation as to why the dogs alerted was because they detected a body is wholly incorrect.
And if the dogs are trained with human corpses?
-
Cadaverine scent originates from many other substances other than a cadaver. Thus to introduce the notion that the only reasonable explanation as to why the dogs alerted was because they detected a body is wholly incorrect.
Its still a very reasonable one....if a cadaver dog were to alerting to all manner of substances they would be alerting left right and centre all the time,in all places deployed, would be a bit pointless deployng them, problem in this case is the dog did not......and not only that, alerted to the only place a child was last seen....what are the odds mathematically that this could happen when the dog was deployed in several other flats and houses and cars? if no one thinks that is justifiable suspicion of a possible death they are burying their head in the sand IMO......it doesnt prove it but there is nothng to disprove it yet either and to discard this information is disngenuous
-
I always thought that they found some sort of trace molecular substance / DNA and couldn't even give a categorical report on what it was - ie saliva blood, skin etc let alone whose it was
The way the discussions go on sometimes about blood is reminiscent of the " blood Splatter " photo that every one got excited about that looked like some sort of gory murder scene from a horror flic with blood dripping between floorboards !!
This was a holiday rental that the dogs visited weeks after the event - even to the extent that other residents had stayed there.
I mean if Maddy had been violently killed that had resulted in this type of blood splatter the case would have been fairly simple
Of course talk of blood spatters is ridiculous, theres nothing to say all those wall markings were specks of blood, in fact I remember reading smething in the files which said it wasnt, but was ages ago and cant find it now
The FSS did find DNA in what was collected, behnd the sofa under the tiles and the small number of components of Madeleines DNA matched that particular samples components, the sample was too meagre for FSS to be able to identify what it was, but the dog only alerts to blood, or anything mixed with it
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
Still, it doesnt prove anythng, but the point is, some people shout it must be this or that but couldnt possibly be Madeleines.....no way, in the same way the cadaver dog alerts must mean this or that but no way suggest a possible death of a child in that flat, its a type of denial IMO
-
Welcome Saepe.
The absence of blood is more important than it's presence in this case. Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in the bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he has detected the scent of cadaver.
Everything sent to the labs was alerted to by Keela.
And Keela alerts, only, to blood ...
-
Of course talk of blood spatters is ridiculous, theres nothing to say all those wall markings were specks of blood, in fact I remember reading smething in the files which said it wasnt, but was ages ago and cant find it now
The FSS did find DNA in what was collected, behnd the sofa under the tiles and the small number of components of Madeleines DNA matched that particular samples components, the sample was too meagre for FSS to be able to identify what it was, but the dog only alerts to blood, or anything mixed with it
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
Still, it doesnt prove anythng, but the point is, some people shout it must be this or that but couldnt possibly be Madeleines.....no way, in the same way the cadaver dog alerts must mean this or that but no way suggest a possible death of a child in that flat, its a type of denial IMO
Perhaps someone could inform Hideho that there were no blood splatters on the wall... She doesn't seem to have integrated this fact 6 years on, yet promotes it as such in one or more of her "factual" videos.
-
Everything sent to the labs was alerted to by Keela.
And Keela alerts, only, to blood ...
So? the fact that the scientific labs are incapable of testing for cadaver scent means just that, thats why dogs are used btw Ferryman, perhaps you can suggest how samples of cadaver odour could be collected and sent as well
@)(++(*
Nice try no cigar
-
Perhaps someone could inform Hideho that there were no blood splatters on the wall... She doesn't seem to have integrated this fact 6 years on, yet promotes it as such in one or more of her "factual" videos.
8-)(--) The videos that she loves so much yet refused to come back here to defend them.
-
Nice try no cigar
Good job I don't smoke ...
-
8-)(--) The videos that she loves so much yet refused to come back here to defend them.
One or more people spent quite a lot of time pointing out the errors in her videos. Gilet was one, from memory. For some reason, I can't find those posts. Have they been whooshed? If so, why?
-
Grimes has a machine that he claims can do this.
Does he? i dont think so
Anyway from Mr Grime's personal profile
Scientists accept that there is no forensic testing equipment as discriminatory as the dogs olfactory system at this present moment in time.
Allresearch and training of the dogs within this program is completed in conjunction with a team of scientists for differing fields of expertise.
They have in the past and will continue to endorse the dogs uses
within the field of homicide investigations.
-
I am not that interested in the dogs- I dismissed them for scientific and formal reasons years ago.
What I am saying is that there is no logical syllogism that supports your statement "Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in the bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he has detected the scent of cadaver."
I think you'll find that's my quote.
-
Grimes has a machine that he claims can do this.
It's a US device.
http://www.pmsmicro.com/forensicscienceschapter_4d.pdf (http://www.pmsmicro.com/forensicscienceschapter_4d.pdf)
-
Perhaps someone could inform Hideho that there were no blood splatters on the wall... She doesn't seem to have integrated this fact 6 years on, yet promotes it as such in one or more of her "factual" videos.
Don't do your Gerald McCann, Carana, don't wait till someone tells it for you, tell her yourself !
-
Cadaverine scent originates from many other substances other than a cadaver. Thus to introduce the notion that the only reasonable explanation as to why the dogs alerted was because they detected a body is wholly incorrect.
John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.
-
John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.
indeed, he normally waits and sits quietly to be told by the handler to go and search, in this instance, the smell must have been strong, to Eddie, even from outside the front door for him wanting to get off his leesh asap...those dogs noses, invaluable
-
John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.
No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh. A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse. I might not have phrased my original post too well.
A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver. That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.
-
No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh. A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse. I might not have phrased my original post too well.
A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver. That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.
Thank you John for clearing that up.
-
No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh. A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse. I might not have phrased my original post too well.
A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver. That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.
But there is no such thng as forensic evidence for a cadaver dog alerting to remnant dead body scent
The only back up in general is the blood dog being sent in after the cadaver dog has alerted and finding blood which matches the victim....people can die without shedding blood though
dogs abilities are way beyond what science can match, and prove, mr grimes provisos are the best that can be offered
complicated subject nite