How long does cadaver scent last?

[G-Unit]

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

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"

[Robittybob1]

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.

[jassi]

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.

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[Brietta]

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

[G-Unit]

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?

[Alice Purjorick]

I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?

Joe 90 glasses?

[Mr Gray]

I wonder how they knew he was waving Grime's report?

do you think that is somehow significant

[Robittybob1]

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".

[Brietta]

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.