I was wondering this too, and I've tried researching it, but still not found a proper answer.
What I did find - and I was surprised by, is that apparently, in training and tests, they can sniff out traces of bodies that have been dead for less than 3 hours. In the Maddie case, 3 hours is quite a long time, so it doesn't really tell us much at all - but I mean, in general terms, that's not a long time.
When people talked about the dogs being trained to sniff out a smell caused by chemicals during putrification, I thought they were talking about decomposing bodies... bodies that had been there for days or weeks. I never thought it was a matter of hours.
Apparently that's not true and 3 hours is actually enough for them to be able to sniff it out - crazy! Also I read that they don't necessarily sniff out somewhere where a body has actually been - I mean there doesn't have to be any physical contact whatsoever with a body, i.e. a body lying on a carpet, they can smell it from the air if a body passes through a space.
I'll try and find the link. It doesn't add much to this case, IMO, but it was interesting all the same. I expect many people, like me, thought cadaver dogs were all about finding day/week old, rotting bodies etc. but it seems they can do the same job within a few hours after death. Very, very interesting.
I read somewhere that the recognised & scientifically proven (in laboratory conditions) is a timescale is 2 hours. So for there is be Madeleine cadaver in the apartment her body will need to have been there for 2 hours or thereabouts. Once the body is 2 hours after death placing in somewhere for a very very short time will leave a cadaver scent.
The dogs going woof woof Is of course not admissable in any court. All they do is alert the forensics service of where to look for evidence. The issue as I understand it here is that the samples taken at the indicated sites did not provide conclusive evidence & certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law.
This was the original link I was talking about earlier. The tests were carried out using bodies less than 3 hours dead, with environmental exposure between 2 and 10 minutes to the body, but no physical contact between the body and carpet.
(The website name may make it seem suspect, but the study has been properly and academically referenced if anyone wishes to verify).
Thanks for the link.
Talk about access to the church is pure speculation. Yes they had access however there is no real evidence aside from the knowledge that they had that access.
I read somewhere that the recognised & scientifically proven (in laboratory conditions) is a timescale is 2 hours. So for there is be Madeleine cadaver in the apartment her body will need to have been there for 2 hours or thereabouts. Once the body is 2 hours after death placing in somewhere for a very very short time will leave a cadaver scent.
The dogs going woof woof Is of course not admissable in any court. All they do is alert the forensics service of where to look for evidence. The issue as I understand it here is that the samples taken at the indicated sites did not provide conclusive evidence & certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law.
I don't think 2 hours is that long when you consider they were out most of the night.
Not that I think the dogs have all the answers. Just saying that it would be possible for her to, ahem, perhaps expire after the parents left her to go out that night, and they assumed she was sleeping when they came to check on her in the meantime.
I read somewhere that the recognised & scientifically proven (in laboratory conditions) is a timescale is 2 hours. So for there is be Madeleine cadaver in the apartment her body will need to have been there for 2 hours or thereabouts. Once the body is 2 hours after death placing in somewhere for a very very short time will leave a cadaver scent.
The dogs going woof woof Is of course not admissable in any court. All they do is alert the forensics service of where to look for evidence. The issue as I understand it here is that the samples taken at the indicated sites did not provide conclusive evidence & certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law.
If you can recall where you read it I'd be interested to read the piece you mentioned. Thanks.
I don't think 2 hours is that long when you consider they were out most of the night.
Not that I think the dogs have all the answers. Just saying that it would be possible for her to, ahem, perhaps expire after the parents left her to go out that night, and they assumed she was sleeping when they came to check on her in the meantime.
As there is a 3-5 hour time window unaccounted for...yes.
Sometimes it's best not to feed the...you know posters
I don't think 2 hours is that long when you consider they were out most of the night.
Not that I think the dogs have all the answers. Just saying that it would be possible for her to, ahem, perhaps expire after the parents left her to go out that night, and they assumed she was sleeping when they came to check on her in the meantime.
I understand that. This 2 hour issue does, however, put a big hole in Amaral theory of what happened. He says that we was moved much quicker than that. But it is all theory anyway.
The other issue for me is that of CCTV. There is this view that Gerry walked through a village carrying a dead body. Now surely anyone & certainly anyone from UK would not expect to be able to do this unseen. The fact that no CCTV existed surprised me.
Are we going to get stories and programmes about the McCanns at this time of year, for years to come, cos quite frankly, Im sick of them. How many other children have disappeared in the world, through no fault of their parents, without the benefit of millions of pounds of donations, months of press coverage, private detectives and a meeting with the Pope.
I understand that. This 2 hour issue does, however, put a big hole in Amaral theory of what happened. He says that we was moved much quicker than that. But it is all theory anyway.
The other issue for me is that of CCTV. There is this view that Gerry walked through a village carrying a dead body. Now surely anyone & certainly anyone from UK would not expect to be able to do this unseen. The fact that no CCTV existed surprised me.
I'm going to be 100% honest - I'm not really a big McCann... I don't know how to word it, but I've never really cared before about the case I only started partaking in this thread because I watched the Panorama program a few nights ago. So I haven't read the Amaral theory
I guess someone from the UK would be thinking about CCTV, as we have so much of it over here. But then again, that's a double edged statement. We *do* have so much of it over here. I have no idea of the statistics or figures, but I'm betting we have a hell of a lot more of it than they do in Portugal, which makes you wonder, whether it could be possible, maybe, after all.
Like I said, I'm not really in to the case, so forgive me if I'm asking stupid questions/saying silly things. But from what I know, the apartment was not in a hotel-like building. It was an apartment, part of a block of other apartments (?) but not like an apartment in a hotel, on a hotel corridor. Which automatically rules out CCTV in/around the apartment, like you'd have inside a hotel. In a hotel there'd probably be CCTV on every stairwell/corridor/at every entrance/the reception area. The fact it was a standalone apartment means there were no shared stairwells or corridors that would have CCTV... IMO, anyway.
And I don't know the area where the apartment was, but if it's not in the center of a busy town/city/place, and more in a residential like area (which I'm thinking it was, as there were houses etc. on the same road?) then would there be CCTV in the streets? We don't have CCTV in the streets here. High streets, town centres etc. yes, but not in residential areas.
FWIW, I don't necessarily believe any of this whatsoever. I'm not even *that* interested in the case, lol. I'm just playing devil's advocate - I don't think the 2 hour time slot or CCTV is necessarily a "aha! it can't have happened!" thing. I can comfortably imagine that it would be possible to do what has been suggested without getting seen on CCTV.
So I post that a lot of you are just going around in circles and that makes me a troll :rolleyes: ......... errr OK .......
Tell you what, lets just call everyone who disagrees with your opinion a troll and we'll make life easier for you.
You're missing the point though. DS rules, and the T&C state that posters should make constructive threads and posts. Threads or posts which aren't considered constructive usually get the thread closed. Your posts are an example of this.
I'm not sure if that's the intention - that you want the thread closed - or if you're just recklessly posting, but posting unconstructive posts about "how people are going around in circles" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
And for what it's worth - you haven't disagreed with anyone's opinion. Doing so would take some thought, and effort, which you haven't displayed so far in this thread. If you had disagreed, there could have been a discussion. But you didn't disagree with anyone or add anything constructive.
I'd advise if you don't like this thread, then simply avoid it. Making pointless posts is wasting your time, and risking the thread being closed when many people are interested in it.
This will be my last reply to you.
---
I'd advise other posters not to bother replying to him as he seems like another Penelope Simpson. Reporting his posts - however tempting and justified - won't have a desired effect either, so we should probably just leave him to his own devices.
I expect he'll be off to bed soon anyhow as it's nearing 6.
You're missing the point though. DS rules, and the T&C state that posters should make constructive threads and posts. Threads or posts which aren't considered constructive usually get the thread closed. Your posts are an example of this.
I'm not sure if that's the intention - that you want the thread closed - or if you're just recklessly posting, but posting unconstructive posts about "how people are going around in circles" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
And for what it's worth - you haven't disagreed with anyone's opinion. Doing so would take some thought, and effort, which you haven't displayed so far in this thread. If you had disagreed, there could have been a discussion. But you didn't disagree with anyone or add anything constructive.
I'd advise if you don't like this thread, then simply avoid it. Making pointless posts is wasting your time, and risking the thread being closed when many people are interested in it.
This will be my last reply to you.
---
I'd advise other posters not to bother replying to him as he seems like another Penelope Simpson. Reporting his posts - however tempting and justified - won't have a desired effect either, so we should probably just leave him to his own devices.
I expect he'll be off to bed soon anyhow as it's nearing 6.
I read somewhere that the recognised & scientifically proven (in laboratory conditions) is a timescale is 2 hours. So for there is be Madeleine cadaver in the apartment her body will need to have been there for 2 hours or thereabouts. Once the body is 2 hours after death placing in somewhere for a very very short time will leave a cadaver scent.
The dogs going woof woof Is of course not admissable in any court. All they do is alert the forensics service of where to look for evidence. The issue as I understand it here is that the samples taken at the indicated sites did not provide conclusive evidence & certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law.
I thought there had been studies done that showed the time was 45 minutes. Although, I have recently seen a quote from a trial where a dog handler said the dog could detect the scent immediately after death.*
I guess that is the problem with studies - they do not get the cadaver when it is only minutes old. If it is already 2 hours past death at the start of the study, that will be the earliest time that can be recorded.
I understand that. This 2 hour issue does, however, put a big hole in Amaral theory of what happened. He says that we was moved much quicker than that. But it is all theory anyway.
The other issue for me is that of CCTV. There is this view that Gerry walked through a village carrying a dead body. Now surely anyone & certainly anyone from UK would not expect to be able to do this unseen. The fact that no CCTV existed surprised me.
I believe the UK has more cameras per person & size of the country than any other. Praia da Luz is described as fishing village so I dunno how many cameras it would have. Funnily I now live in a fishing village in the UK & compared to London (where I used to work) there are few CCTV cameras here. There is some CCTV footage of the families eating in a tapas restaurant that day but I don't know of any other footage that has been deemed relevant.
I believe the UK has more cameras per person & size of the country than any other. Praia da Luz is described as fishing village so I dunno how many cameras it would have. Funnily I now live in a fishing village in the UK & compared to London (where I used to work) there are few CCTV cameras here. There is some CCTV footage of the families eating in a tapas restaurant that day but I don't know of any other footage that has been deemed relevant.
I suppose my thought ( & that is all it is) is that a reasonably intelligent guy who was disposing of a body & concocting an alibi would be brave if not foolhardy to wander through a village carrying a body & expect there not to be any CCTV trace of his movements. Lets be honest it is the lack of this that has hampered the investigation as it is all back to to days of old!
Are we going to get stories and programmes about the McCanns at this time of year, for years to come, cos quite frankly, Im sick of them. How many other children have disappeared in the world, through no fault of their parents, without the benefit of millions of pounds of donations, months of press coverage, private detectives and a meeting with the Pope.
I second that, no one ever discusses the search for Ben Needham who went missing whilst on holiday with his family years before Maddie. As awful as it is, the media need to move on from this case, and start reporting on more important news.
I thought there had been studies done that showed the time was 45 minutes. Although, I have recently seen a quote from a trial where a dog handler said the dog could detect the scent immediately after death.
I guess that is the problem with studies - they do not get the cadaver when it is only minutes old. If it is already 2 hours past death at the start of the study, that will be the earliest time that can be recorded.
My understanding is what is claimed & what is scientically proven is the issue.
Re: attached case that report doesn't say if forensics were able to place the girl at the site (via DNA) where the dogs went woof woof. I'm assuming they must have or otherwise the case couldn't have been brought. What they couldn't do via forensics it appears is place the accused at the spot but relied on circumstantial evidence.
Translate this to Madeleine case. If forensics could accurately via forensics prove that Madeleine dead body was at the places the dog barked then they could pursue without body.
I suppose my thought ( & that is all it is) is that a reasonably intelligent guy who was disposing of a body & concocting an alibi would be brave if not foolhardy to wander through a village carrying a body & expect there not to be any CCTV trace of his movements. Lets be honest it is the lack of this that has hampered the investigation as it is all back to to days of old!
I agree, especially a village he doesn't perhaps know that well. All we have are the two witness statements (Tanner & the Smiths), I assume there was either no cameras in the areas of these sightings or footage found that could rule out or establish the veracity of either one as we would have heard about it by now.
My understanding is what is claimed & what is scientically proven is the issue.
Re: attached case that report doesn't say if forensics were able to place the girl at the site (via DNA) where the dogs went woof woof. I'm assuming they must have or otherwise the case couldn't have been brought. What they couldn't do via forensics it appears is place the accused at the spot but relied on circumstantial evidence.
Translate this to Madeleine case. If forensics could accurately via forensics prove that Madeleine dead body was at the places the dog barked then they could pursue without body.
My point is that if a scientific study starts with a cadaver already 2 hours post death, then that is going to be the earliest time the study can say the scent is detected. It's a new area and unless a study somehow gains access to a minute old corpse then the 'official' start time is probably always going to lag behind what the detection dogs scent in actuality.
As for the other case, it does say inthw article that forensic testa failed to find substantial evidence to link to the accused.
This article also says that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence.
conviction on circumstantial evidence can happen. however its usually dependent upon the prosecution offering a robust case as to motive, means, opportunity and character as happened in that case.
none of those factors have been properly attempted, let alone convincingly in the case of the mccanns, not by the detective at the time, and not by anyone since.
There was a theory(barking mad or not?)that Maddie may have met her fate the day before.
There are a lot of theories that are little more than speculation. I could claim anything may have happened to her & you would not be able to disprove what I suggest but neither would I be able to prove it.
conviction on circumstantial evidence can happen. however its usually dependent upon the prosecution offering a robust case as to motive, means, opportunity and character as happened in that case.
none of those factors have been properly attempted, let alone convincingly in the case of the mccanns, not by the detective at the time, and not by anyone since.
A subjective point of view. The Portuguese Police did not believe they had enough evidence to prosecute. Does not mean they did not properly attempt to find that evidence. Equally there is not enough evidence to prove an abduction took place let alone who committed it.
conviction on circumstantial evidence can happen. however its usually dependent upon the prosecution offering a robust case as to motive, means, opportunity and character as happened in that case.
none of those factors have been properly attempted, let alone convincingly in the case of the mccanns, not by the detective at the time, and not by anyone since.
The key difference between these two cases is that there will have been forensic evidence (DNA) that the girls body was at the site the dogs went woof woof. Otherwise it could have been a tramp!! The circumstantial bit relates only to the guy being charged. The key bit that folks miss is that dogs going woof woof means nothing unless there is forensic evidence to prove a body & exactly who that body was.
A subjective point of view. The Portuguese Police did not believe they had enough evidence to prosecute. Does not mean they did not properly attempt to find that evidence. Equally there is not enough evidence to prove an abduction took place let alone who committed it.
as i recall, the attorney general stated that there was no evidence of any crime committed by the mccanns (or the other 'arguido').
my comments in the previous post were relating to the lack of any credible account of a crime committed by the mccanns regardless of whether there was evidence to support it.
Comments
I read somewhere that the recognised & scientifically proven (in laboratory conditions) is a timescale is 2 hours. So for there is be Madeleine cadaver in the apartment her body will need to have been there for 2 hours or thereabouts. Once the body is 2 hours after death placing in somewhere for a very very short time will leave a cadaver scent.
The dogs going woof woof Is of course not admissable in any court. All they do is alert the forensics service of where to look for evidence. The issue as I understand it here is that the samples taken at the indicated sites did not provide conclusive evidence & certainly not anything that would stand up in a court of law.
Thanks for the link.
Talk about access to the church is pure speculation. Yes they had access however there is no real evidence aside from the knowledge that they had that access.
Not that I think the dogs have all the answers. Just saying that it would be possible for her to, ahem, perhaps expire after the parents left her to go out that night, and they assumed she was sleeping when they came to check on her in the meantime.
If you can recall where you read it I'd be interested to read the piece you mentioned. Thanks.
As there is a 3-5 hour time window unaccounted for...yes.
Sometimes it's best not to feed the...you know posters
I understand that. This 2 hour issue does, however, put a big hole in Amaral theory of what happened. He says that we was moved much quicker than that. But it is all theory anyway.
The other issue for me is that of CCTV. There is this view that Gerry walked through a village carrying a dead body. Now surely anyone & certainly anyone from UK would not expect to be able to do this unseen. The fact that no CCTV existed surprised me.
So I post that a lot of you are just going around in circles and that makes me a troll :rolleyes: ......... errr OK .......
Tell you what, lets just call everyone who disagrees with your opinion a troll and we'll make life easier for you.
I'm going to be 100% honest - I'm not really a big McCann... I don't know how to word it, but I've never really cared before about the case I only started partaking in this thread because I watched the Panorama program a few nights ago. So I haven't read the Amaral theory
I guess someone from the UK would be thinking about CCTV, as we have so much of it over here. But then again, that's a double edged statement. We *do* have so much of it over here. I have no idea of the statistics or figures, but I'm betting we have a hell of a lot more of it than they do in Portugal, which makes you wonder, whether it could be possible, maybe, after all.
Like I said, I'm not really in to the case, so forgive me if I'm asking stupid questions/saying silly things. But from what I know, the apartment was not in a hotel-like building. It was an apartment, part of a block of other apartments (?) but not like an apartment in a hotel, on a hotel corridor. Which automatically rules out CCTV in/around the apartment, like you'd have inside a hotel. In a hotel there'd probably be CCTV on every stairwell/corridor/at every entrance/the reception area. The fact it was a standalone apartment means there were no shared stairwells or corridors that would have CCTV... IMO, anyway.
And I don't know the area where the apartment was, but if it's not in the center of a busy town/city/place, and more in a residential like area (which I'm thinking it was, as there were houses etc. on the same road?) then would there be CCTV in the streets? We don't have CCTV in the streets here. High streets, town centres etc. yes, but not in residential areas.
FWIW, I don't necessarily believe any of this whatsoever. I'm not even *that* interested in the case, lol. I'm just playing devil's advocate - I don't think the 2 hour time slot or CCTV is necessarily a "aha! it can't have happened!" thing. I can comfortably imagine that it would be possible to do what has been suggested without getting seen on CCTV.
You're missing the point though. DS rules, and the T&C state that posters should make constructive threads and posts. Threads or posts which aren't considered constructive usually get the thread closed. Your posts are an example of this.
I'm not sure if that's the intention - that you want the thread closed - or if you're just recklessly posting, but posting unconstructive posts about "how people are going around in circles" isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
And for what it's worth - you haven't disagreed with anyone's opinion. Doing so would take some thought, and effort, which you haven't displayed so far in this thread. If you had disagreed, there could have been a discussion. But you didn't disagree with anyone or add anything constructive.
I'd advise if you don't like this thread, then simply avoid it. Making pointless posts is wasting your time, and risking the thread being closed when many people are interested in it.
This will be my last reply to you.
---
I'd advise other posters not to bother replying to him as he seems like another Penelope Simpson. Reporting his posts - however tempting and justified - won't have a desired effect either, so we should probably just leave him to his own devices.
I expect he'll be off to bed soon anyhow as it's nearing 6.
lol ....... just lol ..........
I thought there had been studies done that showed the time was 45 minutes. Although, I have recently seen a quote from a trial where a dog handler said the dog could detect the scent immediately after death.*
I guess that is the problem with studies - they do not get the cadaver when it is only minutes old. If it is already 2 hours past death at the start of the study, that will be the earliest time that can be recorded.
As for not standing up In court, you may find this case interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957
* edit for what I think is the link:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120418/NEWS02/204180363/Bianca-Jones-At-hearing-on-murder-abuse-charges-tot-s-sister-says-dad-hit-her?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs
I believe the UK has more cameras per person & size of the country than any other. Praia da Luz is described as fishing village so I dunno how many cameras it would have. Funnily I now live in a fishing village in the UK & compared to London (where I used to work) there are few CCTV cameras here. There is some CCTV footage of the families eating in a tapas restaurant that day but I don't know of any other footage that has been deemed relevant.
I suppose my thought ( & that is all it is) is that a reasonably intelligent guy who was disposing of a body & concocting an alibi would be brave if not foolhardy to wander through a village carrying a body & expect there not to be any CCTV trace of his movements. Lets be honest it is the lack of this that has hampered the investigation as it is all back to to days of old!
I second that, no one ever discusses the search for Ben Needham who went missing whilst on holiday with his family years before Maddie. As awful as it is, the media need to move on from this case, and start reporting on more important news.
My understanding is what is claimed & what is scientically proven is the issue.
Re: attached case that report doesn't say if forensics were able to place the girl at the site (via DNA) where the dogs went woof woof. I'm assuming they must have or otherwise the case couldn't have been brought. What they couldn't do via forensics it appears is place the accused at the spot but relied on circumstantial evidence.
Translate this to Madeleine case. If forensics could accurately via forensics prove that Madeleine dead body was at the places the dog barked then they could pursue without body.
oh i see.
so when you said various things 'would have' happened you actually meant they 'might have' happened. or might not.
thereby rather weakening the motive you attempted to attach to the imaginary happenings.
I agree, especially a village he doesn't perhaps know that well. All we have are the two witness statements (Tanner & the Smiths), I assume there was either no cameras in the areas of these sightings or footage found that could rule out or establish the veracity of either one as we would have heard about it by now.
My point is that if a scientific study starts with a cadaver already 2 hours post death, then that is going to be the earliest time the study can say the scent is detected. It's a new area and unless a study somehow gains access to a minute old corpse then the 'official' start time is probably always going to lag behind what the detection dogs scent in actuality.
As for the other case, it does say inthw article that forensic testa failed to find substantial evidence to link to the accused.
This article also says that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/disappearance-of-suzanne-pilley-prompted-one-of-scotlands-most-complex-murder-hunts-7657888.html
conviction on circumstantial evidence can happen. however its usually dependent upon the prosecution offering a robust case as to motive, means, opportunity and character as happened in that case.
none of those factors have been properly attempted, let alone convincingly in the case of the mccanns, not by the detective at the time, and not by anyone since.
There are a lot of theories that are little more than speculation. I could claim anything may have happened to her & you would not be able to disprove what I suggest but neither would I be able to prove it.
A subjective point of view. The Portuguese Police did not believe they had enough evidence to prosecute. Does not mean they did not properly attempt to find that evidence. Equally there is not enough evidence to prove an abduction took place let alone who committed it.
The key difference between these two cases is that there will have been forensic evidence (DNA) that the girls body was at the site the dogs went woof woof. Otherwise it could have been a tramp!! The circumstantial bit relates only to the guy being charged. The key bit that folks miss is that dogs going woof woof means nothing unless there is forensic evidence to prove a body & exactly who that body was.
as i recall, the attorney general stated that there was no evidence of any crime committed by the mccanns (or the other 'arguido').
my comments in the previous post were relating to the lack of any credible account of a crime committed by the mccanns regardless of whether there was evidence to support it.