Grime's rogatory and blood ...

[ferryman]

how did the coconut have collagen in it

It didn't.

Coconuts don't have collagen

[Mrs. B]

The Collagen "expert" changed her mind

This, at best, was misleading. Dr Roberts's log for April 9 states: 'On 8 and 9 April I re-examined JAR/6 (the fragment) ... It had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight.
'These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definitive conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis.
'I reported my findings to Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1086018/How-police-chief-Lenny-Harper-lost-plot-Jersey-childrens-home-murders.html

[AnneGuedes]

It was discussed and discussed again and nobody ignores that Martin Grime  and Mark Harrison clearly stated that without forensic backing the dogs' alerts were of no use in court.
But.. of some use in the investigation.
Keela found blood but it wasn't Madeleine's. Interestingly Eddie alerted where Keela didn't. He smelt death, not blood, in 3 different places of the flat/patio. Also remarkably he smelt it once the door was open.
Somebody likely died in that flat (in Portugal bodies are quickly removed to little chapels or morgues and buried/incinerated by law in less than 24 hours). Was it Madeleine ? We'll never know but the probability is very high.
Unless Martin Grime and Mark Harrison were corrupted, which has been desperately suggested on this forum.

[Mrs. B]

No, there is no more likelihood of anyone dying in that apartment than anyone carrying around cross contaminated items, or munching on Coconuts. None of the experts in the field has drawn such a conclusion. The only conclusion to be drawn is that there is no conclusion TO be drawn, as not ONE single sole alert from Eddie was confirmed by forensics, not a single one. Martin Grime & Harrison were not corrupted, the people who chose to ignore them, however.....that's a different story.

[AnneGuedes]

Did I say dogs' alerts were evidence without forensic corroboration ?
But they are intelligence, as Mark Harrison says.
Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously what we don't know is what happened to her afterwards, who has taken her and what the motive is, and we're best not to think that out.
I wonder why they believe she was alive when taken from but don't know obviously what happened afterwards.

[gilet]

It was discussed and discussed again and nobody ignores that Martin Grime  and Mark Harrison clearly stated that without forensic backing the dogs' alerts were of no use in court.
But.. of some use in the investigation.
Keela found blood but it wasn't Madeleine's. Interestingly Eddie alerted where Keela didn't. He smelt death, not blood, in 3 different places of the flat/patio. Also remarkably he smelt it once the door was open.
Somebody likely died in that flat (in Portugal bodies are quickly removed to little chapels or morgues and buried/incinerated by law in less than 24 hours). Was it Madeleine ? We'll never know but the probability is very high.
Unless Martin Grime and Mark Harrison were corrupted, which has been desperately suggested on this forum.

Yes and that USE was to point to where people should look for FORENSIC CORROBORATION.
What other use do you think they served?


No-one suggests those two were corrupt.
What is clear though that the PJ did not understand the report and totally misrepresented the contents.

[Mrs. B]

Did I say dogs' alerts were evidence without forensic corroboration ?
But they are intelligence, as Mark Harrison says.
Kate and I strongly believe that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from the apartment. Obviously what we don't know is what happened to her afterwards, who has taken her and what the motive is, and we're best not to think that out.
I wonder why they believe she was alive when taken from but don't know obviously what happened afterwards.

It's called LOGIC, i.e. someone enters the apartment & accidentally kills a child, whether in an attempted robbery or a kidnap, what would be the point of taking the dead child with you when you leave & risk being spotted carrying around same dead child in the street? That scenario makes NO sense whatsoever.

[gilet]

It's called LOGIC, i.e. someone enters the apartment & accidentally kills a child, whether in an attempted robbery or a kidnap, what would be the point of taking the dead child with you when you leave & risk being spotted carrying around same dead child in the street? That scenario makes NO sense whatsoever.

Ah but it would appear that this poster clearly does not believe the Portuguese official who was absolutely clear that there is NO evidence of any crime by the McCanns. I very much doubt this poster is even considering an "abductor".

The only logical conclusion from Anne Guedes' post is that she is denying the clear statement by the PJ official and prefers to believe the convicted liar, Amaral.

[AnneGuedes]

It's called LOGIC, i.e. someone enters the apartment & accidentally kills a child, whether in an attempted robbery or a kidnap, what would be the point of taking the dead child with you when you leave & risk being spotted carrying around same dead child in the street? That scenario makes NO sense whatsoever.

Your logic, but not the logic of a predator, who wouldn't risk to be traced by cells left on a body.

[Mrs. B]

Your logic, but not the logic of a predator, who wouldn't risk to be traced by cells left on a body.

Really Anne, what happened to the "falling skin cells" you say the Portuguese dogs could sniff days after the event, in such abundance that it doesn't even matter if the person tracked was CARRIED by another person, i.e. in your estimation - was the potential abductor immune against that while IN the apartment? We know that the crime scene was not preserved by police & therefore utterly contaminated, but a potential abductor wouldn't have KNOWN that was going to happen, would he?

[AnneGuedes]

Really Anne, what happened to the "falling skin cells" you say the Portuguese dogs could sniff days after the event, in such abundance that it doesn't even matter if the person tracked was CARRIED by another person, i.e. in your estimation - was the potential abductor immune against that while IN the apartment? We know that the crime scene was not preserved by police & therefore utterly contaminated, but a potential abductor wouldn't have KNOWN that was going to happen, would he?

I'm afraid I don't understand what's in your mind, Mrs. B. What is the dog issue doing here?
1) Wrapped in a holdall, a child wouldn't leave scent, but if the child is carried and moreover if its feet are bare, odour will be left that a sniffer dog who has been offered an item belonging to the child is able to pick up.
2) Unfortunately the anonymous carrier left no object to offer to the sniffer dogs. If he had, not only the sniffers had been able to follow his track, but Sherlock would have determined he had a black cat, the left leg slightly shorter than the right, a Greek girlfriend, was the owner of a boat and a Bourgogne snails eater, which would help the police to identify him.
3) We know the crime scene was not preserved in the first place by the missing child's father. No strangers' cells on the shutters and the window.

[Mrs. B]

You really don't make sense, when an abductor walking on the street with a child in his arms, that child is dropping skin cells in abundance, this was your argument when explaining how the dogs could track Madeleine's scent.

The argument you use to explain why an abductor would chose to walk around with a dead child in his arms in a busy a tourist resort, was that he was afraid to leave traces behind & therefor had to take the body. So my question was, how come the abductor wasn't aware he'd be leaving traces behind by dropping millions of skin cells all over the place?

& btw, it's up to police to preserve crime scenes in normal countries, not victims of crime, & Gerry didn't have dogs with him so he can't be responsible for the scene being contaminated with hundreds of dog hairs, can he?

But hower

[AnneGuedes]

You really don't make sense, when an abductor walking on the street with a child in his arms, that child is dropping skin cells in abundance, this was your argument when explaining how the dogs could track Madeleine's scent.
Yes, the sniffers are "nose on the ground" as opposed to the rescue dogs, cells fall on the ground from a higher point but not more, not less. What counts is the "freshness" of those particles.

The argument you use to explain why an abductor would chose to walk around with a dead child in his arms in a busy a tourist resort, was that he was afraid to leave traces behind & therefor had to take the body. So my question was, how come the abductor wasn't aware he'd be leaving traces behind by dropping millions of skin cells all over the place?
No sniffer can follow someone's scent without a reference.
If the man was carrying away a child he had killed accidentally, in fear his cells would be found on the body and analysed for DNA, he had obviously to think about a way to dispose of the body. That would explain his chaotic behaviour between JT and the Smiths.
Mr McCann said JW was the only person he crossed in the street in his checks. The people above Mrs Fenn who came back from dinner at 21:15 said it was "so quiet and peaceful" except for a certain animation in the tapas restaurant


& btw, it's up to police to preserve crime scenes in normal countries, not victims of crime, & Gerry didn't have dogs with him so he can't be responsible for the scene being contaminated with hundreds of dog hairs, can he?
Dogs were taken inside in the desperate attempt to find out Madeleine's track.
Are you suggesting Portugal is an abnormal country ?
And supposing Mr McCann has the privilege of education without having the implied duties ?
I don't think Mr and Mrs McCann are going that far.

[Mrs. B]

You are attempting to have you cake & eat it, I was not implying that Portugal is not a normal country, I'm quite convinced that Police are responsible for containing crime scenes in Portugal as well as any other country, it was YOU who was implying it was up to the McCanns.

[AnneGuedes]

You are attempting to have you cake & eat it, I was not implying that Portugal is not a normal country, I'm quite convinced that Police are responsible for containing crime scenes in Portugal as well as any other country, it was YOU who was implying it was up to the McCanns.

Mrs. B, are you never attempting to have the butter and the money for it ? Everybody does. Actually, on the crime scene topic, I don't find this remark is pertinent. I understand perfectly Mr McCann was out of his mind and lifted the shutters, opened the window without realizing he was destroying eventual evidence. I would never think of blaming him if and only if the same Mr and Mrs McCann didn't claim and lament everywhere that the PJ didn't do his job. This is unacceptable.
We have discussed this already (preserving the crime scene is in the Portuguese law, but above all it is common sense).