I know that the lady who works in the local supermarket wears so much perfume you can see it shimmering on the air, but generally scents are a bit more insubstantial than that :cool:
well, of course, its a massive assumption to suggest that the alerts were to the items found. specially since the majority of the alerts illicited nothing. thousands of tons of soil were sifted.
and if naturally shed milk teeth 'count' as a cadaver alert then it makes the cadaver bit somewhat moot....
Well, you seemed conversant with what Martin Grimes has said up there ^^^^ so I thought you would have remembered the part where he says the ERVD is trained using whole and disintegrated tissue - inc blood, bone tissue and teeth.
The dog does not determine how they were detached or shed - just that they are there.
I really don't see how a dog finding what it is trained to find is such a big issue. The human detectives contextualise the findings, not the dogs.
Cadaver scent (it was this dog used) indicates a cadaver WAS there, not is there. The milk teeth were found there by humans not the dog.
but there was no evidence that any cadavers were there? at least, not since the 17th century....
an alert in itself is meaningless if the suggestion is that they can detect across the centuries and in the absence of any evidence and/or several acres from the actual remains. i'm surprised they aren't in a state of constant alert if they can do all that. there can't be many bits of land that haven't been vaguely linked to a corpse at some time in the last millenia....
I really don't see how a dog finding what it is trained to find is such a big issue. The human detectives contextualise the findings, not the dogs.
well, i think that we don't know that its found what its trained to find unless there's evidence to support it. thats grimes whole point.
and the reason its up for debate is because the alerts (alone) is being put forward as circumstantial evidence against the mccanns. yet how could we rule out a myriad other possible scenarios if the dogs are as sensitive as is being suggested.
i mean, i guess madeleine had milk teeth? and thats far more likely than that her mother bundled her body off somewhere, but somehow, thats not the explanation people seem to go for.
well, i think that we don't know that its found what its trained to find unless there's evidence to support it. thats grimes whole point.
and the reason its up for debate is because the alerts (alone) is being put forward as circumstantial evidence against the mccanns. yet how could we rule out a myriad other possible scenarios if the dogs are as sensitive as is being suggested.
i mean, i guess madeleine had milk teeth? and thats far more likely than that her mother bundled her body off somewhere, but somehow, thats not the explanation people seem to go for.
I was talking about the finding of milk teeth in Jersey, nothing to do with Portugal
Is that supposed to be when he returned to retrieve DNA samples? Two full weeks after...
So the children (unhygienically) shared hairbrush and toothbrush. Assuming Maddie and the twins are full siblings (I am alleging nothing here), wouldn't their DNA be almost indistinguishable? Or, couldn't the Plods have taken fresh DNA samples from the twins to rule them out from, for example, blood spatter in the appartment?
Plods find blood spatter and CSIs do DNA trace..
and run DNA comparisons with the twins and both parents (to do a sibling & paternity test)
and they can determine that the blood came from a child of the parents
but that it is not from the twins
ergo it is Maddie's blood.
I don't understand why someone needed to come back to the UK to get Maddie's DNA from a pillow. You saying that all of Maddie's clothes were clean... they were laundered in Portugal... or would they be considered contaminated if they were left in a laundry basket/suitcase to bring home...
Did the McCs refuse to provide DNA from themselves and/or the twins?
Plods find blood spatter and CSIs do DNA trace..
and run DNA comparisons with the twins and both parents (to do a sibling & paternity test)
and they can determine that the blood came from a child of the parents
but that it is not from the twins
ergo it is Maddie's blood.
i don't think there was any 'blood splatter' was there?
as i recall all the samples were either positively identified and matched to people (eg previous occupants of the apartment); or were a mixture of several people's DNA making it impossible to identify which bits belonged to whom.
i think there were one or two samples that yielded a full profile but remain unidentified.
Is that supposed to be when he returned to retrieve DNA samples? Two full weeks after...
So the children (unhygienically) shared hairbrush and toothbrush. Assuming Maddie and the twins are full siblings (I am alleging nothing here), wouldn't their DNA be almost indistinguishable? Or, couldn't the Plods have taken fresh DNA samples from the twins to rule them out from, for example, blood spatter in the appartment?
Plods find blood spatter and CSIs do DNA trace..
and run DNA comparisons with the twins and both parents (to do a sibling & paternity test)
and they can determine that the blood came from a child of the parents
but that it is not from the twins
ergo it is Maddie's blood.
I don't understand why someone needed to come back to the UK to get Maddie's DNA from a pillow. You saying that all of Maddie's clothes were clean... they were laundered in Portugal... or would they be considered contaminated if they were left in a laundry basket/suitcase to bring home...
Did the McCs refuse to provide DNA from themselves and/or the twins?
Responsible for the disappearance of their daughter and unhygenic? My god. Terrible.
It seems strange though that when dogs are brought in that have been extremely (almost 100%) successful in other investigations their 'findings' were rubbished by some people. If a dog signalled that there were traces of blood etc where a person who has disappeared was last seen and on different items in the vicinity if it was anything to do with me I think I'd be desparate for it to be investigated as thoroughly as possible.
Where does this almost 100% come from? 100% of what?
The dogs indicated something in all sorts of place including a car which was not hired until 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared Are you seriously telling me that these dogs in every case they have previously been involved in every time that they went woof woof the forensic teams were able to get sufficient evidence to prove that a cadaver was there. If that is the case then there is something wrong here. Why when the dogs went woof woof this time is there nothing or nothing of significance to get any real evidence from? Doesn't it strike you as strange?
I think what made me sort of sit up was the McCanns reaction to the dogs findings....McCann himself tried to make fun of them...........
Now for me the scenario is this.
You find your daughter missing. You know you had nothing to do with the child missing.
After extensive searching the police are advised by the British police to send in the dogs.
So the dogs go into the apartment and indicate blood and death.
What would I do? I would probably be wailing on the floor crying hysterically to think that someone had harmed my child in the apartment...I would be so upset and I would be begging the police to find her even more quickly as she could be somewhere hurt and alone etc etc.
I would never have made fun of the dogs findings.
That is what made me think........
This is exactly what made me wonder. I said earlier in the thread, I would have wanted this investigating to a conclusion. I would have wanted to know exactly what this could mean.
The dogs' indications are proof of nothing, we know that. What intrigued me is the hostility with which the dogs were met. I just can't understand that at all.
Where does this almost 100% come from? 100% of what?
The dogs indicated something in all sorts of place including a car which was not hired until 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared Are you seriously telling me that these dogs in every case they have previously been involved in every time that they went woof woof the forensic teams were able to get sufficient evidence to prove that a cadaver was there. If that is the case then there is something wrong here. Why when the dogs went woof woof this time is there nothing or nothing of significance to get any real evidence from? Doesn't it strike you as strange?
No.
Eddie alters to scent. There is nothing there to get 'real' evidence from.
There was a case in the States where dogs alerted and nothing found. Until eventually a confession showed that where the dogs alerted the body had been, the body had in fact been - and this was 30 years after the event.
It's not a case of an alert being proof of anything but an alert, until the case is closed nothing is certain - but it is a case that they cannot be dismissed out of hand and completely disregarded.
No.
Eddie alters to scent. There is nothing there to get 'real' evidence from.
There was a case in the States where dogs alerted and nothing found. Until eventually a confession showed that where the dogs alerted the body had been, the body had in fact been - and this was 30 years after the event.
It's not a case of an alert being proof of anything but an alert, until the case is closed nothing is certain - but it is a case that they cannot be dismissed out of hand and completely disregarded.
I get that. What I don't get is the 100% stuff. 100% of what? I'm sceptical that there is evidential proof that 'almost' every time these dogs indicate (woof or whatever) that a cadaver has been present. If a body is not there & there is no forensic evidence - no proof exists that they are right.
I get that. What I don't get is the 100% stuff. 100% of what? I'm sceptical that there is evidential proof that 'almost' every time these dogs indicate (woof or whatever) that a cadaver has been present. If a body is not there & there is no forensic evidence - no proof exists that they are right.
Or wrong
Which is surely why it has to be bourne in mind when you are talking about the last known definite location of someone who is now missing, that's all.
I get that. What I don't get is the 100% stuff. 100% of what? I'm sceptical that there is evidential proof that 'almost' every time these dogs indicate (woof or whatever) that a cadaver has been present. If a body is not there & there is no forensic evidence - no proof exists that they are right.
It's not that there is no forev but it's not sufficient for Plod or legal purposes... or what there is has been contaminated... or cannot be matched to a suspect or anyone 'in the system'... (in which case it should be held on file for the future). We now have instances where ppl (usually men) are being found guilty of crimes they committed 15/20 years ago when - as a cold case - they are re-investigated with the better DNA testing we have now.
Can't stand the charade the McCanns play out. People are blinded by their middle class status. If they had lived in a Council Estate they would have been jailed for neglect at the very least.
The Portugese should have pressed charges on this aspect.
I notice the Mc Canns have to be mentioned approx every month, why is this?
They should be throughly be investigated by our own Social Services for NEGLECT
It's not that there is no forev but it's not sufficient for Plod or legal purposes... or what there is has been contaminated... or cannot be matched to a suspect or anyone 'in the system'... (in which case it should be held on file for the future). We now have instances where ppl (usually men) are being found guilty of crimes they committed 15/20 years ago when - as a cold case - they are re-investigated with the better DNA testing we have now.
Again I get this but how can it be said that the dogs are almost 100% right. Without forensic evidence to prove it you've no idea what they are barking at, Given how sensitive these dogs are supposed to be there must be cadaver scent all over the place. My Mum died in the lounge of my parents house & it was about at least 3 hours until the GP had certified death & the undertaker came to pick her up. The bed is now with my brother at his home. Hope he never gets suspected of foul play!
Plus the fact that Kate was desperate to speak to a Catholic priest during the early hours. Who would think of phoning a priest when your daughter could have just wandered off or was snuggled up in a neighbours flat?
What was a priest in England going to do to aid the search?
And Kate's Mum didn't even think she was very religious...
I do know people who would turn to their priest immediately in any crisis. My mum is one, my mum-in-law is another. Even people who wouldn't be considered devout catholics may turn to their priest in all sorts of situations. Once a catholic, always a catholic.... etc.
Comments
and your point is?
i mean, aside from imaginary
21st May 2007
Well, you seemed conversant with what Martin Grimes has said up there ^^^^ so I thought you would have remembered the part where he says the ERVD is trained using whole and disintegrated tissue - inc blood, bone tissue and teeth.
The dog does not determine how they were detached or shed - just that they are there.
I really don't see how a dog finding what it is trained to find is such a big issue. The human detectives contextualise the findings, not the dogs.
but there was no evidence that any cadavers were there? at least, not since the 17th century....
an alert in itself is meaningless if the suggestion is that they can detect across the centuries and in the absence of any evidence and/or several acres from the actual remains. i'm surprised they aren't in a state of constant alert if they can do all that. there can't be many bits of land that haven't been vaguely linked to a corpse at some time in the last millenia....
Actually they showed the 'undercover on elderly care' episode ... but my Sky Planner listed it as Madeleine as did the (I) button
It will be repeated early Thursday morning (wavy lady time
well, i think that we don't know that its found what its trained to find unless there's evidence to support it. thats grimes whole point.
and the reason its up for debate is because the alerts (alone) is being put forward as circumstantial evidence against the mccanns. yet how could we rule out a myriad other possible scenarios if the dogs are as sensitive as is being suggested.
i mean, i guess madeleine had milk teeth? and thats far more likely than that her mother bundled her body off somewhere, but somehow, thats not the explanation people seem to go for.
I was talking about the finding of milk teeth in Jersey, nothing to do with Portugal
but we don't know that the dogs did find anything in jersey, as opposed to it being chance.
Is that supposed to be when he returned to retrieve DNA samples? Two full weeks after...
Plods find blood spatter and CSIs do DNA trace..
and run DNA comparisons with the twins and both parents (to do a sibling & paternity test)
and they can determine that the blood came from a child of the parents
but that it is not from the twins
ergo it is Maddie's blood.
I don't understand why someone needed to come back to the UK to get Maddie's DNA from a pillow. You saying that all of Maddie's clothes were clean... they were laundered in Portugal... or would they be considered contaminated if they were left in a laundry basket/suitcase to bring home...
Did the McCs refuse to provide DNA from themselves and/or the twins?
Was that the time he saved someones life on the plane then had his wallet stolen at the cash point?
i don't think there was any 'blood splatter' was there?
as i recall all the samples were either positively identified and matched to people (eg previous occupants of the apartment); or were a mixture of several people's DNA making it impossible to identify which bits belonged to whom.
i think there were one or two samples that yielded a full profile but remain unidentified.
No, that was the middle of June-ish.
Responsible for the disappearance of their daughter and unhygenic? My god. Terrible.
Agreed but I do enjoy The Cube.
His life is just one big soap opera isnt it?
Where does this almost 100% come from? 100% of what?
The dogs indicated something in all sorts of place including a car which was not hired until 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared Are you seriously telling me that these dogs in every case they have previously been involved in every time that they went woof woof the forensic teams were able to get sufficient evidence to prove that a cadaver was there. If that is the case then there is something wrong here. Why when the dogs went woof woof this time is there nothing or nothing of significance to get any real evidence from? Doesn't it strike you as strange?
This is exactly what made me wonder. I said earlier in the thread, I would have wanted this investigating to a conclusion. I would have wanted to know exactly what this could mean.
The dogs' indications are proof of nothing, we know that. What intrigued me is the hostility with which the dogs were met. I just can't understand that at all.
No.
Eddie alters to scent. There is nothing there to get 'real' evidence from.
There was a case in the States where dogs alerted and nothing found. Until eventually a confession showed that where the dogs alerted the body had been, the body had in fact been - and this was 30 years after the event.
It's not a case of an alert being proof of anything but an alert, until the case is closed nothing is certain - but it is a case that they cannot be dismissed out of hand and completely disregarded.
I get that. What I don't get is the 100% stuff. 100% of what? I'm sceptical that there is evidential proof that 'almost' every time these dogs indicate (woof or whatever) that a cadaver has been present. If a body is not there & there is no forensic evidence - no proof exists that they are right.
Or wrong
Which is surely why it has to be bourne in mind when you are talking about the last known definite location of someone who is now missing, that's all.
It's not that there is no forev but it's not sufficient for Plod or legal purposes... or what there is has been contaminated... or cannot be matched to a suspect or anyone 'in the system'... (in which case it should be held on file for the future). We now have instances where ppl (usually men) are being found guilty of crimes they committed 15/20 years ago when - as a cold case - they are re-investigated with the better DNA testing we have now.
The Portugese should have pressed charges on this aspect.
I notice the Mc Canns have to be mentioned approx every month, why is this?
They should be throughly be investigated by our own Social Services for NEGLECT
Again I get this but how can it be said that the dogs are almost 100% right. Without forensic evidence to prove it you've no idea what they are barking at, Given how sensitive these dogs are supposed to be there must be cadaver scent all over the place. My Mum died in the lounge of my parents house & it was about at least 3 hours until the GP had certified death & the undertaker came to pick her up. The bed is now with my brother at his home. Hope he never gets suspected of foul play!
I do know people who would turn to their priest immediately in any crisis. My mum is one, my mum-in-law is another. Even people who wouldn't be considered devout catholics may turn to their priest in all sorts of situations. Once a catholic, always a catholic.... etc.