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: Vertigo Swirl on June 10, 2018, 07:23:15 PM
-
How long does cadaver scent last and knowing the answer, how would that have helped solve the case?
14
-
Like Mrs mcCann I can do a quick google and this was the first article I read:
"Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month".
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html?via=gdpr-consent
-
How long does cadaver scent last then, and knowing the answer, how would that have helped solve the case?
It wouldn’t have solved the case but at least she would have appeared honest.
“Results
Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.
What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
Each time we have worked the problem we have included teams that had not worked the area before. We now have had 16 teams work the residual scent problem. The dogs have ranged from veteran cadaver trained certified teams to 1 year old puppies (who have been training from 8 weeks of age on cadaver and residual scent).”
http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html
-
Like Mrs mcCann I can do a quick google and this was the first article I read:
"Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month".
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html?via=gdpr-consent
No conclusive results yet......that doesn’t sound like 30 days.
-
No conclusive results yet......that doesn’t sound like 30 days.
You dismissed 30 days out of hand, so you must surely know the answer.
-
You dismissed 30 days out of hand, so you must surely know the answer.
Read my modified post above.
-
It wouldn’t have solved the case but at least she would have appeared honest.
“Results
Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.
What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
Each time we have worked the problem we have included teams that had not worked the area before. We now have had 16 teams work the residual scent problem. The dogs have ranged from veteran cadaver trained certified teams to 1 year old puppies (who have been training from 8 weeks of age on cadaver and residual scent).”
http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html
So cadaver scent can last up to a year if the source of the scent (in this case comprising of actual body fluids, not a freshly deceased body) is left in a room with minimal human disturbance for 5 hours. How long if a newly deceased body is left for fewer than five hours in a room with plenty of human disturbance?
-
So cadaver scent can last up to a year if the source of the scent (in this case comprising of actual body fluids, not a freshly deceased body) is left in a room with minimal human disturbance for 5 hours. How long if a newly deceased body is left for fewer than five hours in a room with plenty of human disturbance?
I’ve supplied you with a cite.....now it’s your turn for 30 days ( and an unnamed SY detective hypothesising will just not do ).
-
I’ve supplied you with a cite.....now it’s your turn for 30 days ( and an unnamed SY detective hypothesising will just not do ).
In 2014 police with the help of cadaver dogs searched the lawless hills around Luz so if the scent only last's 30 days were they hot on the heels of a corpse or does it indeed last longer.
-
I’ve supplied you with a cite.....now it’s your turn for 30 days ( and an unnamed SY detective hypothesising will just not do ).
Your argument was that Kate McCann should have known that 30 days was a load of guff by simply googling the answer. I don’t think it’s as straightforward as that do you? If she was advised by an unnamed SY detective that the scent wouldn’t last longer than 30 days in his opinion why wouldn’t she take his word for it? I don’t have a cite for 30 days that you will accept by the way, but then I don’t accept your cite as it tells us nothing about how long cadaver scent would have lasted in the circumstances thst would have applied in 5a.
-
In 2014 police with the help of cadaver dogs searched the lawless hills around Luz so if the scent only last's 30 days were they hot on the heels of a corpse or does it indeed last longer.
I doubt residual cadaver scent lasts for 7 years out in the open to be honest.
-
I doubt residual cadaver scent lasts for 7 years out in the open to be honest.
A layman’s opinion...
-
A layman’s opinion...
but a pretty sensible one nonetheless.
-
Your argument was that Kate McCann should have known that 30 days was a load of guff by simply googling the answer. I don’t think it’s as straightforward as that do you? If she was advised by an unnamed SY detective that the scent wouldn’t last longer than 30 days in his opinion why wouldn’t she take his word for it? I don’t have a cite for 30 days that you will accept by the way, but then I don’t accept your cite as it tells us nothing about how long cadaver scent would have lasted in the circumstances thst would have applied in 5a.
I believe Mrs McCann says in her book that Gerry had researched the subject and the 30 days was the result. As we have demonstrated the subject is not at all cut and dried so for the author to pretend it is is disingenuous if not downright dishonest.
-
In 2014 police with the help of cadaver dogs searched the lawless hills around Luz so if the scent only last's 30 days were they hot on the heels of a corpse or does it indeed last longer.
Indeed it does if there are actual body remains in the vicinity. In my opinion if there had been any in the areas inspected the dogs would have homed in.
Don't the files record searches with dogs where rods were inserted into the ground to release any trapped scents? It is a recognised technique. I don't recall that way back then it was any more productive than in 2014, strongly suggesting to me there was no body there to be found.
-
If some rotten flesh was preserved in such a way a seal could be maintained the cadaver odour could be trapped within the container indefinitely IMO or estimation.
Decomposed flesh dried and the sealed into a glass jar would maintain cadaver odour for hundreds of years. It would all depend on the initial concentration, and maintaining the seal. IMO
-
A layman’s opinion...
could you terefore cite a scientific opinion...there isnt one
-
If some rotten flesh was preserved in such a way a seal could be maintained the cadaver odour could be trapped within the container indefinitely IMO or estimation.
Decomposed flesh dried and the sealed into a glass jar would maintain cadaver odour for hundreds of years. It would all depend on the initial concentration, and maintaining the seal. IMO
The question is supposed to be “how long does residual cadaver scent last”. The McCanns who researched it came up with no more than 30 days, Faithlilly says it’s a lie. I guess the answer depends who you ask and what you ask.
-
The question is supposed to be “how long does residual cadaver scent last”. The McCanns who researched it came up with no more than 30 days, Faithlilly says it’s a lie. I guess the answer depends who you ask and what you ask.
I have seen no expert except your ‘unnamed hypothesising SY handler’ say anywhere near thirty days. In fact most papers written on the subject say much longer. So where did the author get her information from ?
-
I have seen no expert except your ‘unnamed hypothesising SY handler’ say anywhere near thirty days. In fact most papers written on the subject say much longer. So where did the author get her information from ?
You may find something in here.
Canine and Scent Detection. A Bibliography Related to Crime Scene Interpretation with Emphases in Forensic Geotaphonomic and Forensic Archaeological Field Techniques (17th Edition)
-
You may find something in here.
Canine and Scent Detection. A Bibliography Related to Crime Scene Interpretation with Emphases in Forensic Geotaphonomic and Forensic Archaeological Field Techniques (17th Edition)
I’ll put it on my ‘to read’ list Alice @)(++(*
-
You may find something in here.
Canine and Scent Detection. A Bibliography Related to Crime Scene Interpretation with Emphases in Forensic Geotaphonomic and Forensic Archaeological Field Techniques (17th Edition)
you wont find it anywhere...
-
You may find something in here.
Canine and Scent Detection. A Bibliography Related to Crime Scene Interpretation with Emphases in Forensic Geotaphonomic and Forensic Archaeological Field Techniques (17th Edition)
The abstract doesn't specify anything about time limits as far as I can see. There again neither did I see anything pertaining to "the scent of death" only physical remains which are a sort of clincher as far as presuming death is concerned I would imagine. Who knows, could be well worth requesting the full text if the abstract is anything to go by.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281125919_Canine_and_Scent_Detection_A_Bibliography_Related_to_Crime_Scene_Interpretation_with_Emphases_in_Forensic_Geotaphonomic_and_Forensic_Archaeological_Field_Techniques_17th_Edition
-
If some rotten flesh was preserved in such a way a seal could be maintained the cadaver odour could be trapped within the container indefinitely IMO or estimation.
Decomposed flesh dried and the sealed into a glass jar would maintain cadaver odour for hundreds of years. It would all depend on the initial concentration, and maintaining the seal. IMO
My estimation was based on memory of the claim by M Grime that he was using 100 year old teeth as a source of cadaver odour for training purposes.
-
I have seen no expert except your ‘unnamed hypothesising SY handler’ say anywhere near thirty days. In fact most papers written on the subject say much longer. So where did the author get her information from ?
Presumably there are so many variables that there is no one set answer. How long a body has been dead, how long it is in situ, whether body fluids had leaked from it, the room geography, ventilation, how often the room is used etc etc. If Gerry was told 30 days in those circumstances by someone in authority why would he disbelieve them? As for “most papers” you have supplied one page from a dog handlers website about an experiment carried out in the 1990s, accredited as far as I can see to no named individual, a hardly impartial study and even so one that acknowledges more follow up work needs to be done (but if done was never published). Kindly supply further links to all the other papers you have read on the subject.
-
My estimation was based on memory of the claim by M Grime that he was using 100 year old teeth as a source of cadaver odour for training purposes.
If he is using physical remains then that is not remnant scent
-
If he is using physical remains then that is not remnant scent
the scent has remained for 100 years. Are you thinking the tooth is producing cadaver odour after all this time? Possible too I suppose.
-
the scent has remained for 100 years. Are you thinking the tooth is producing cadaver odour after all this time? Possible too I suppose.
I have no idea and as grime is not a scientist I doubt he does either... There is simply little or no scientific evidence to support the accuracy of the alerts
-
If he is using physical remains then that is not remnant scent
If it was found by scent but not sight it was remnant scent.
-
If it was found by scent but not sight it was remnant scent.
If physical remains, are present it's not remnant scent
Attracts Harrons body was found by scent.. Not by sight
-
If it was found by scent but not sight it was remnant scent.
In the training I don't believe the tooth was left for the dog to find, I'd need to have another look.
-
In the training I don't believe the tooth was left for the dog to find, I'd need to have another look.
https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0?t=76 He hides a jar of sand that contains the scent of 100 year old human remains. So the remains aren't in the jar but the sand and the scent is. Am I right?
-
https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0?t=76 He hides a jar of sand that contains the scent of 100 year old human remains. So the remains aren't in the jar but the sand and the scent is. Am I right?
Is, the jar sealed... Prob is
-
https://youtu.be/en5zHpvG9m0?t=76 He hides a jar of sand that contains the scent of 100 year old human remains. So the remains aren't in the jar but the sand and the scent is. Am I right?
Pelvic cavity of a skeletonised corpse is what he say's, I think.
-
So if a child loses a milk tooth on holiday and a parent puts it in a bag of a shelf in a cupboard then will the cadaver odour linger longer than a month?
-
So if a child loses a milk tooth on holiday and a parent puts it in a bag of a shelf in a cupboard then will the cadaver odour linger longer than a month?
According to the results in Jersey... Supposedly years.. Which I find total BS
-
According to the results in Jersey... Supposedly years.. Which I find total BS
Accept that facts.
-
Accept that facts.
What facts.. The whole point is there are no facts
-
So if a child loses a milk tooth on holiday and a parent puts it in a bag of a shelf in a cupboard then will the cadaver odour linger longer than a month?
Do you mean? "So if a child loses a milk tooth on holiday and a parent puts it in a bag of a shelf in a cupboard then removes the bag, will the cadaver odour linger longer than a month?"
The strength on the shelf surface will be greater if it wasn't bagged IMO. The bag will contain the odour within the bag so less will permeate the shelf material.
-
Do you mean? "So if a child loses a milk tooth on holiday and a parent puts it in a bag of a shelf in a cupboard then removes the bag, will the cadaver odour linger longer than a month?"
The strength on the shelf surface will be greater if it wasn't bagged IMO. The bag will contain the odour within the bag so less will permeate the shelf material.
yes that’s what I meant. What if they place the tooth wrapped in a bit of tissue on the shelf for a day and then pack it and remove it, how long will the cadaver odour last then? A day? A week? A month? A year? Longer? I’m sure there’sbound to be a paper about it on the internet somewhere.
-
yes that’s what I meant. What if they place the tooth wrapped in a bit of tissue on the shelf for a day and then pack it and remove it, how long will the cadaver odour last then? A day? A week? A month? A year? Longer? I’m sure there’sbound to be a paper about it on the internet somewhere.
If a body is laid on a flower bed... Outside an apartment in Portugal... How long will the of our remain... With wind and rain
-
If a body is laid on a flower bed... Outside an apartment in Portugal... How long will the of our remain... With wind and rain
At least 3 months obviously, the experts all say so.
-
At least 3 months obviously, the experts all say so.
That is a major flaw in the alerts... And of course no soil sample taken... Why not
-
I’ll put it on my ‘to read’ list Alice @)(++(*
It is likely to be more reliable than cut and pastes from "Ye Olde Currant Bun" and "Daily Mile"..... ?{)(**
-
So is the answer to the thread questions is as per Gerry McCann's research: scientific research has been done to confirm how long cadaver scents lasts in anb given situation..
So then we come across this :https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2018/03/06/cadaver-dogs-sniff-out-likely-revolutionary-war-burial-ground/
https://www.inverse.com/article/34350-cadaver-dogs-smell-death-corpse-police
-
The abstract doesn't specify anything about time limits as far as I can see. There again neither did I see anything pertaining to "the scent of death" only physical remains which are a sort of clincher as far as presuming death is concerned I would imagine. Who knows, could be well worth requesting the full text if the abstract is anything to go by.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281125919_Canine_and_Scent_Detection_A_Bibliography_Related_to_Crime_Scene_Interpretation_with_Emphases_in_Forensic_Geotaphonomic_and_Forensic_Archaeological_Field_Techniques_17th_Edition
I was rather expecting someone might lob out coin of the realm, buy the book, read the book and then be better informed rather than form a jumped instant conclusion on the basis of an abstract or a long held prejudice.
I would imagine some posters have very decorative stick men and animals on their cfave walls always assuming they worked out how to make fire.
The dogs are bit like the bicycle shed in Parkinson.
-
According to the results in Jersey... Supposedly years.. Which I find total BS
Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
-
Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
According to reports from Jersey deciduous teeth were recovered from the site of the alerts... In my opinion... I find.... That is BS
Similarly the, alert in the flower bed
-
According to reports from Jersey deciduous teeth were recovered from the site of the alerts... In my opinion... I find.... That is BS
Similarly the, alert in the flower bed
As long as the readership understands the fallacy you are employing.
-
As long as the readership understands the fallacy you are employing.
I'm sure they are all well versed in the art of fallacies.... It's basic knowledge these, days
-
I'm sure they are all well versed in the art of fallacies.... It's basic knowledge these, days
Speak for yourself.
-
You may find something in here.
Canine and Scent Detection. A Bibliography Related to Crime Scene Interpretation with Emphases in Forensic Geotaphonomic and Forensic Archaeological Field Techniques (17th Edition)
What did you find relevant?
-
Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance, claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
I think you misunderstand your fallacies... If I say the the absence of evidence against the mccanns is, evidence of their innocence.... Then that is not a, fallacy
If I say it's proof of their innocence... Then that is a fallacy
-
I was rather expecting someone might lob out coin of the realm, buy the book, read the book and then be better informed rather than form a jumped instant conclusion on the basis of an abstract or a long held prejudice.
I would imagine some posters have very decorative stick men and animals on their cfave walls always assuming they worked out how to make fire.
The dogs are bit like the bicycle shed in Parkinson.
We don't need to buy any book.... Harrison and Grime have told us all we need to know
-
What did you find relevant?
The fact that it is a published work seemingly having some authority outside Wyboston Beds rather than the usual litany of unreviewed research papers we see on here that have been scabbed from the internet. I could go on but the Mods will not like it one little bit..... 8(0(*
-
The fact that it is a published work seemingly having some authority outside Wyboston Beds rather than the usual litany of unreviewed research papers we see on here that have been scabbed from the internet. I could go on but the Mods will not like it one little bit..... 8(0(*
The question.. Is it relavent.... Does it deal with remnant scent.... Does it tell us anymore than we already know
There is very little proper info te remnant scent
-
I was rather expecting someone might lob out coin of the realm, buy the book, read the book and then be better informed rather than form a jumped instant conclusion on the basis of an abstract or a long held prejudice.
I would imagine some posters have very decorative stick men and animals on their cfave walls always assuming they worked out how to make fire.
The dogs are bit like the bicycle shed in Parkinson.
It doesn't appear to be a book. I have applied for access to the full document & am waiting to hear if the author is willing to share.
-
It doesn't appear to be a book. I have applied for access to the full document & am waiting to hear if the author is willing to share.
Coconut to the lady.
It may at least provide a different setting out point to work from... ?{)(**
-
Coconut to the lady.
It may at least provide a different setting out point to work from... ?{)(**
Some of the research appears to be rather yesterday's news, Alice. The part that interests me is odour adhering to the hand by contact or close proximity.
I will let you know if I am granted full access but if there are bucks involved then it's a no from me.
-
Some of the research appears to be rather yesterday's news, Alice. The part that interests me is odour adhering to the hand by contact or close proximity.
I will let you know if I am granted full access but if there are bucks involved then it's a no from me.
What would you expect to find in a bibliography?
So is Tim O'Shenko if you want to look at it that way.
Your point being?
-
Eugene Zapata killed his wife in 1976. Cadaver dogs alerted to the scene of the murder in 2005. That's 29 years.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2008/02/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-5-years.html
-
Eugene Zapata killed his wife in 1976. Cadaver dogs alerted to the scene of the murder in 2005. That's 29 years.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2008/02/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-5-years.html
Not sure what your point is but this might help
"Zapata dug up Jeanette Zapata's remains and moved them to a storage locker in Sun Prairie with some camping equipment. Later in 2005, he disposed of the remains in several Dumpsters at the Juneau County landfill. District Attorney Brian Blanchard said Monday that although police searched the landfill in 2006, no new search for remains was made after Zapata's statement to Statz.
Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct"
-
Eugene Zapata killed his wife in 1976. Cadaver dogs alerted to the scene of the murder in 2005. That's 29 years.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.com/2008/02/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-5-years.html
You can see that running an experiment on how long cadaver odour lasts is full of problems. 29 years is a long time.
-
You can see that running an experiment on how long cadaver odour lasts is full of problems. 29 years is a long time.
I wonder if you could test in a graveyard? Different parts of the graveyard usually contain bodies of different ages.
-
I wonder if you could test in a graveyard? Different parts of the graveyard usually contain bodies of different ages.
As this is about residual scent I don't think that would answer questions, unless it was a graveyard that had been completely exhumed.
-
I wonder if you could test in a graveyard? Different parts of the graveyard usually contain bodies of different ages.
The embalming process could affect the production of cadaver odour. A cadaver dog isn't a robot. I think the dogs would get bored with that type of experiment. Good idea though. Can a cadaver dog pick up a scent through 6 feet of dirt?
-
If a dog can allegedly alert to a bodythat once lay in a building from 29+ years ago it tends to lessen their evidential value IMO. If 29 years then why not 129 years ago? Depending on the age of a building it might have contained more than one body over the years so an alert really proves nothing. But - I'm sceptical about residual scent lingering for that long, especially one that was wrapped in a tent and buried elsewhere shortly after the murder. It seems the police / court didn't accept it either.
-
If a dog can allegedly alert to a bodythat once lay in a building from 29+ years ago it tends to lessen their evidential value IMO. If 29 years then why not 129 years ago? Depending on the age of a building it might have contained more than one body over the years so an alert really proves nothing. But - I'm sceptical about residual scent lingering for that long, especially one that was wrapped in a tent and buried elsewhere shortly after the murder. It seems the police / court didn't accept it either.
Imagine what it is like being a person who actually committed a crime but they are denying it. If then the police show the cadaver dog barking in the same areas that were involved with the crime, what emotional pressure that would have on the criminal's conscience? It wouldn't matter if the dog was wrong or it was an alert from another body it will still be effective only if the dog alerts in the right areas.
-
Imagine what it is like being a person who actually committed a crime but they are denying it. If then the police show the cadaver dog barking in the same areas that were involved with the crime, what emotional pressure that would have on the criminal's conscience? It wouldn't matter if the dog was wrong or it was an alert from another body it will still be effective only if the dog alerts in the right areas.
That might qualify as legitimate bluff. The dogs did alert and the PJ no doubt thought they'd finally catcheed the monkey (s) even though they didn't know themselves what was within the dog's "training parameters". We still don't, in fact, although the Met might.
Faced with "evidence", some crack and admit their crimes (which, if Kate's account is accurate, was to present the lawyer with the videos and to advise her to admit to whatever, presumably crimes with the prospect of a lower level of potential prison). Some falsely admit to crimes (I find the Innocence Project interesting) for all kinds of reasons; some simply change the story to fit in with whatever evidence they're presented with.... the list goes on of various shades of innocent to guilty.
I haven't found anything to confirm that either of the McCanns were able to read the DNA results - which appears to have been the other "evidence". At the time, it could only have been the Lowe e-mail, not the formal final report that was sent later along with various other bits and pieces from the HO.
-
That might qualify as legitimate bluff. The dogs did alert and the PJ no doubt thought they'd finally catcheed the monkey (s) even though they didn't know themselves what was within the dog's "training parameters". We still don't, in fact, although the Met might.
Faced with "evidence", some crack and admit their crimes (which, if Kate's account is accurate, was to present the lawyer with the videos and to advise her to admit to whatever, presumably crimes with the prospect of a lower level of potential prison). Some falsely admit to crimes (I find the Innocence Project interesting) for all kinds of reasons; some simply change the story to fit in with whatever evidence they're presented with.... the list goes on of various shades of innocent to guilty.
I haven't found anything to confirm that either of the McCanns were able to read the DNA results - which appears to have been the other "evidence". At the time, it could only have been the Lowe e-mail, not the formal final report that was sent later along with various other bits and pieces from the HO.
Neither were shown the 'evidence' which was the basis of them being made arguidos, despite Gerry asking to see it.
Quote
When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’
MADELEINE Kate McCann
-
Neither were shown the 'evidence' which was the basis of them being made arguidos, despite Gerry asking to see it.
Quote
When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’
MADELEINE Kate McCann
I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?
-
I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?
Joe 90 glasses?
-
I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?
do you think that is somehow significant
-
Neither were shown the 'evidence' which was the basis of them being made arguidos, despite Gerry asking to see it.
Quote
When Gerry asked to see the DNA report, Ricardo became quite flustered, waving PC Grime’s document in the air and saying, ‘It is the dogs that are important!’
MADELEINE Kate McCann
That is a miscarriage of justice. From what I understand the PJ are supposed to show the accused the evidence they had against the arguido. I suppose waving the Grime report in front of Gerry is one interpretation of "showing him the evidence".
-
That is a miscarriage of justice. From what I understand the PJ are supposed to show the accused the evidence they had against the arguido. I suppose waving the Grime report in front of Gerry is one interpretation of "showing him the evidence".
I think so too, Robitty.
They were shown the dog videos, which is fine. They were not shown the results of the FSS tests, which is not fine.
-
I think so too, Robitty.
They were shown the dog videos, which is fine. They were not shown the results of the FSS tests, which is not fine.
Would that be the dog videos in full or just the edited version of the important bits? I'd fall asleep if I had to watch the entire hour and a half video.
-
I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?
Maybe he asked them what they were flapping in his face, or they told him?
-
Maybe he asked them what they were flapping in his face, or they told him?
Seems logical.
-
Would that be the dog videos in full or just the edited version of the important bits? I'd fall asleep if I had to watch the entire hour and a half video.
I think it was the 'edited' highlights. Kate describes Paiva as pausing the video when a dog 'alerted' but not fast forwarding it. I think the PJ were truly convinced by the videos to the extent it blinded them to what Martin Grime said about the requirement for the intelligence provided by the dogs to be backed up by forensic evidence.
-
Eddie alerted many months after in Parker (garage), Prout (living room) and Harron (bedroom) cases to name a few so it's not unusual to the police for this to happen again. Eddie was not brought into missing person cases until later.
"The E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-
Eddie alerted many months after in Parker (garage), Prout (living room) and Harron (bedroom) cases to name a few so it's not unusual to the police for this to happen again. Eddie was not brought into missing person cases until later.
"The E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The really compelling evidence in the three cases you mention was the discovery of human remains.
In two of the cases ... Prout and Parker ... there had been sufficient evidence to enable murder trials to take place and the perpetrators of the crimes to be found guilty on the strength of it.
Both were serving their sentence before their wives remains were found.
In the case of Mrs Harron's horrific murder there was no guess work about the areas appropriate for the dogs' inspection. There was plenty of evidence exactly where to point them ... and in the places alerted to, the alerts were backed up with strong forensic evidence.
In my opinion Mrs Harron's death must have been a blood bath making the key fob scenario in Luz risible were it not so tragic.
Categorically there is absolutely nothing which is of the remotest similarity between these three cases you have quoted and Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Luz.
The forensic testing as a result of places of interest shown by the dogs in Luz has shown there is no evidence which backs up the slightest connection to Madeleine McCann. Nor is there even circumstantial evidence pointing to her death.
Stuff and nonsense in my opinion to keep labouring a point which just does not exist and never has.
Snip
On February 20, 2004, police employed the use of the Victim Recovery Unit dogs from England, which were highly trained to detect and alert handlers to the presence of human remains. A video without sound was shown in the court showing a Springer Spaniel dog examining two cars and a small van before being taken to the Lantra that had been driven by Hamilton and subsequently burned out, allegedly maliciously.
The video clearly showed the spaniel examining the other vehicles without reacting, and as soon as it entered the Lantra it began barking and refused to get out. Its search of the vehicle focused on the front passenger and rear seats.
Further forensic examination was carried out in the rear and passenger compartments of the vehicle and blood was detected from material taken from the car for examination. A car mat from the rear of the car was also shown to contain blood, and because of that, the investigation focused on Hamilton, Mr Mooney said, which included a comprehensive search of the property at Concess Road and in particular the sites of fires in the garden.
Recovered from these were rosary beads, blue plasters, a religious text, a business card, red material and an AIB bank receipt, all of which Mr Mooney described and linked to Mrs Harron; the rosary beads were identical to a set owned by Mr Harron; the bank receipt came from a withdrawal of cash made when Mr and Mrs Harron were at a wedding anniversary function in the south of Ireland on September 5, 2003; the business card was from an architect involved in the design of the new library in Strabane who was friends with Mrs Harron; the plaster matched those exactly which were missing from a box of plasters Mrs Harron bought in Lidl and which bore the same batch number, and the religious text came from a book of devotions available during a special service at the Church of the Immaculate Conception at Barrack Street or from the local religious shop in Strabane.
All of this Mr Mooney said, when taken together, provided compelling evidence connecting Hamilton to the late Mrs Harron.
http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hamilton-trevor-william.htm
Snip
The car mat which was taken for examination also showed blood traces, and a DNA profile was made which matched that of Mrs Harron.
Mr Mooney said the chances of the blood not being Mrs Harron’s were a billion to one and for that reason any notion that it was not her blood in Hamilton’s car could be discounted.
“You cannot elimiate Mrs Harron as being the person who was the source of the blood on the mat,” he told the silent courtroom, adding: “The chance of another person being the source of the blood other than Attracta Harron is so minute it can be safely discounted”.
http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hamilton-trevor-william.htm
-
That is a miscarriage of justice. From what I understand the PJ are supposed to show the accused the evidence they had against the arguido. I suppose waving the Grime report in front of Gerry is one interpretation of "showing him the evidence".
"When questioned by the police or other judicial authority in the preliminary stages of the procedure the arguido has the right to be informed about the facts he/she is being accused of".
Does anyone have a copy of what they were being accused of *? or indeed evidence the McCanns were not informed ?
* please not a press report. Either The Sun or it's Posh Cousin...
-
The really compelling evidence in the three cases you mention was the discovery of human remains.
In two of the cases ... Prout and Parker ... there had been sufficient evidence to enable murder trials to take place and the perpetrators of the crimes to be found guilty on the strength of it.
Both were serving their sentence before their wives remains were found.
In the case of Mrs Harron's horrific murder there was no guess work about the areas appropriate for the dogs' inspection. There was plenty of evidence exactly where to point them ... and in the places alerted to, the alerts were backed up with strong forensic evidence.
In my opinion Mrs Harron's death must have been a blood bath making the key fob scenario in Luz risible were it not so tragic.
Categorically there is absolutely nothing which is of the remotest similarity between these three cases you have quoted and Madeleine McCann's disappearance in Luz.
The forensic testing as a result of places of interest shown by the dogs in Luz has shown there is no evidence which backs up the slightest connection to Madeleine McCann. Nor is there even circumstantial evidence pointing to her death.
Stuff and nonsense in my opinion to keep labouring a point which just does not exist and never has.
Snip
On February 20, 2004, police employed the use of the Victim Recovery Unit dogs from England, which were highly trained to detect and alert handlers to the presence of human remains. A video without sound was shown in the court showing a Springer Spaniel dog examining two cars and a small van before being taken to the Lantra that had been driven by Hamilton and subsequently burned out, allegedly maliciously.
The video clearly showed the spaniel examining the other vehicles without reacting, and as soon as it entered the Lantra it began barking and refused to get out. Its search of the vehicle focused on the front passenger and rear seats.
Further forensic examination was carried out in the rear and passenger compartments of the vehicle and blood was detected from material taken from the car for examination. A car mat from the rear of the car was also shown to contain blood, and because of that, the investigation focused on Hamilton, Mr Mooney said, which included a comprehensive search of the property at Concess Road and in particular the sites of fires in the garden.
Recovered from these were rosary beads, blue plasters, a religious text, a business card, red material and an AIB bank receipt, all of which Mr Mooney described and linked to Mrs Harron; the rosary beads were identical to a set owned by Mr Harron; the bank receipt came from a withdrawal of cash made when Mr and Mrs Harron were at a wedding anniversary function in the south of Ireland on September 5, 2003; the business card was from an architect involved in the design of the new library in Strabane who was friends with Mrs Harron; the plaster matched those exactly which were missing from a box of plasters Mrs Harron bought in Lidl and which bore the same batch number, and the religious text came from a book of devotions available during a special service at the Church of the Immaculate Conception at Barrack Street or from the local religious shop in Strabane.
All of this Mr Mooney said, when taken together, provided compelling evidence connecting Hamilton to the late Mrs Harron.
http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hamilton-trevor-william.htm
Snip
The car mat which was taken for examination also showed blood traces, and a DNA profile was made which matched that of Mrs Harron.
Mr Mooney said the chances of the blood not being Mrs Harron’s were a billion to one and for that reason any notion that it was not her blood in Hamilton’s car could be discounted.
“You cannot elimiate Mrs Harron as being the person who was the source of the blood on the mat,” he told the silent courtroom, adding: “The chance of another person being the source of the blood other than Attracta Harron is so minute it can be safely discounted”.
http://murderpedia.org/male.H/h/hamilton-trevor-william.htm
I think the police should know who is reliable in this case regardless of forensics not that they would reveal it at this stage. Circumstantial evidence exists.
-
"When questioned by the police or other judicial authority in the preliminary stages of the procedure the arguido has the right to be informed about the facts he/she is being accused of".
Does anyone have a copy of what they were being accused of *? or indeed evidence the McCanns were not informed ?
* please not a press report. Either The Sun or it's Posh Cousin...
Were they being accused of something? Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.
Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?
-
Were they being accused of something? Surely the facts surrounding that would be detailed in the PJ files associated with the arguido statements by the McCann as a guess.
Can they be made arguido without an accusation being made?
This section shows that they were being accused of something untoward.....
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
10_VOLUME_Xa_Page_2580
GERALD PATRICK MCCANN ' STATEMENT AS AN ARGUIDO
(from DVD)
September 7/2007 16.05 to 20.50 at Portimao
When asked if he wished to reply to the facts which he is being imputed with, he replied:
-
I think the police should know who is reliable in this case regardless of forensics not that they would reveal it at this stage. Circumstantial evidence exists.
It is a fallacy to insist circumstantial evidence from the first botched inquiry either exists or is relevant in today's terms.
Your dismissal of forensics is a bit of a mystery for me. Forensics can affirm or discredit the policeman's gut reaction and once the gut reaction is discredited it is time to look for the evidence which will actually solve the case. In my opinion you are very wide of the mark in thinking the police ~ I presume you to mean from the first investigation ~ know diddly-squat about anything of substance and would find themselves in deep trouble if they have been sitting on evidence for eleven years.
The original police premise based on total misunderstanding of the significance of the canine is to my mind one of the tragedies of Madeleine's case and I disagree with you that even circumstantial evidence exists in Madeleine's case.
The three cases you chose to cite should really give you food for thought as to the canine role in an investigation; in Mrs Harron's tragic case in particular where their indications led to forensic evidence assisting the case for conviction of the perpetrator.
It was a totally different situation in Luz where the dog indications were not substantiated. That is no fault of the dogs ... they are capable only of finding what exists and they found nothing pertaining to Madeleine.