Cuddle Cat (and Other Obvious Lies)

[brit1981]

I do not know why you were sarcastic, you clearly said you thought the markers prescence meant it could be identified as belonging to madeleine McCann, when the prescence of markers means it can just be narrowed down to about one sixth of the population.
Still trying to find a good site that still has the dog handler's report, but you said a cadaver scent was found, so do you also have an actual report stating that.

 

[rpgman]

I do not know why you were sarcastic, you clearly said you thought the markers prescence meant it could be identified as belonging to madeleine McCann, when the prescence of markers means it can just be narrowed down to about one sixth of the population.
Still trying to find a good site that still has the dog handler's report, but you said a cadaver scent was found, so do you also have an actual report stating that.

I didn't say 1/6 of the population was staying at that condo.

It's actually simple.

The cadaver dog gets a cadaver hit (or as you would state, a decomposition event), they find DNA that has 15 of 19 markers that Maddie had.

The rest of the family is alive, but Maddie's missing.

To me, in my opinion, that DNA is Maddie's. Can't prosecute it, which is a good thing, because it's not enough to prosecute.

If the McCann's weren't so 'wishy washy' on the cadaver dog, meaning they tried to discredit the dog by stating other cases, and by Kate stating she took the Cuddle Cat to work with her, where their are cadaver's, and before she left for vacation, she was around 6 cadaver's, with the same cloths of her's that were 'alerted' on, then maybe I would believe their story. Plus, she's a General Practitioner. Where would she be around cadaver's?

So, which is it Kate? Were you around cadaver's or are cadaver dogs not reliable?

As too the fact the dogs alerted:

Read this from Martin Grimes Report:

Quote:

There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

The dog alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as evidence.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

End Quote:

So, there were alerts, and of course the dog can't tell us WHO is the cause of the decomposition event, but they can tell us it happened. And Martin's dog did.

As for the Blood in the 'Boot' (Trunk), who's blood could it have been, except for Maddie's? The McCann's state it was grocery meat? lol.

Blood dogs don't alert on ANIMAL MEAT.

All MOO

 

[brit1981]

Again you do not seem to understand how DNA works at all.

Those fifteen markers were shared by madeleine, but they were also shared by gerry McCann, Kate healy, numerous other relatives and a large percentage of the general population. The fact that madeleine is missing does not in anyway add to the odds of the DNA belonging to her, I do not understand why you say it does.

The fact that Gerry and McCann both went in the car, and their components were found suggests it is theirs far more than anyone elses, but it could just as easily belong to the people who used the care before, or one of their friends or relatives.

37 components were found, 15 of these could have equally belonged to Madeleine, gerry, Kate, general population. Lowe states quite clearly it is impossible to say the DNA belongs to madeleine due to the common frequency with which these components are seen, are you saying he is wrong?

grimes states quite clearly that the dogs provide no evidence. The same dog also alerted to remains in an old care home in Jersey. It turned out to be coconut shell I believe. Dogs alerting or not means very little, they are used to find bodies, not to prove a body was once there. The chemicals that the dogs pick up only last about four weeks, so in order for them to have been present a decomposing body would have had to have been in the flat at least two months after madeleine disappeared, yet her parents moved out of the flat at the time of her disappearence.
No blood was found in the car according to the FSS.
Grimes states quite clearly the dogs are not evidence or proof and says that even if the alert is correct the scent can get there by transferance. Lowe states quite clearly it is impossible to detect a single person's DNA from the material found as the components found could belong to a huge number of the population incuding the parents who used the car where the material was found. Why are you saying they are wrong?

 

[rpgman]

Again you do not seem to understand how DNA works at all.

Those fifteen markers were shared by madeleine, but they were also shared by gerry McCann, Kate healy, numerous other relatives and a large percentage of the general population. The fact that madeleine is missing does not in anyway add to the odds of the DNA belonging to her, I do not understand why you say it does.

The fact that Gerry and McCann both went in the car, and their components were found suggests it is theirs far more than anyone elses, but it could just as easily belong to the people who used the care before, or one of their friends or relatives.

37 components were found, 15 of these could have equally belonged to Madeleine, gerry, Kate, general population. Lowe states quite clearly it is impossible to say the DNA belongs to madeleine due to the common frequency with which these components are seen, are you saying he is wrong?

grimes states quite clearly that the dogs provide no evidence. The same dog also alerted to remains in an old care home in Jersey. It turned out to be coconut shell I believe. Dogs alerting or not means very little, they are used to find bodies, not to prove a body was once there. The chemicals that the dogs pick up only last about four weeks, so in order for them to have been present a decomposing body would have had to have been in the flat at least two months after madeleine disappeared, yet her parents moved out of the flat at the time of her disappearence.
No blood was found in the car according to the FSS.
Grimes states quite clearly the dogs are not evidence or proof and says that even if the alert is correct the scent can get there by transferance. Lowe states quite clearly it is impossible to detect a single person's DNA from the material found as the components found could belong to a huge number of the population incuding the parents who used the car where the material was found. Why are you saying they are wrong?

Trust me, following the Caylee Anthony case, I truly know how DNA works.

I'm NOT saying their wrong.

I'm going by MY analysis of all the evidence gathered. Your the one stating that the dogs didn't alert when I gave prove from Martin Grimes report that they DID ALERT.

I admit the dogs can't tell us WHO had the decomp event, just that a decomp event occurred. More evidence was needed, and unfortunately, in my opinion the McCann's hid that corroborating edvidance well.

The DNA 'could' have been Maddie's. Correct?

The dog DID alert to several spots in the CONDO, and on the cloths, both worn by Maddie and Kate. (you stated they didn't, correct?)

Kate gave lame reasons why the dog alerted (even though you stated they didn't alert, which I gave you PROVE they did alert). Her reasons were pretty lame IMO. She took Cuddle Cat to work, and she was around cadaver's prior to leaving on holiday (vacation) even though she's a General Practitioner. lol

In my opinion, the McCann's are pretty lucky for not being prosecuted. Unfortunately, they didn't find enough evidence. In my opinion, being medical doctors, they were smarter and knew how to clean up and hide DNA and give lame excuses to dog alert hits, or as you would state, decomp event.

So, where's your PROVE that the dogs DIDN'T ALERT? That's the reason I wanted the link to Martin's report. Because, I knew you were wrong.

 

[rpgman]

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/print/cadaverdogasforensictool-print.html


Dogs have established themselves prominently in the law enforcement community. In spite of this, cadaver dogs "have been minimally represented in the law enforcement canine population across the United States" [1]. Cadaver dogs are also known as human remains detector dogs [1], forensic search dogs, and decomposition dogs [2]. The term "cadaver" can be misleading because the dog may not always locate an actual body, but may indicate on scavenged parts, body fluids, or the residual odor of a body [3]. For the purpose of this paper, the term "cadaver dog" will mean any dog trained to detect deceased humans, human parts, or residue from human remains.

The odors emitted by a deceased person begin the moment biological death occurs and are not immediately noticeable by humans. The odors are, however, discernable by dogs. Odors associated with dead bodies differ from one individual to the next even though the process of decomposition and the chemical reactions that occur in humans are generally the same [4]. Unlike the drug detector dog which may have to learn only four to six different odors or the explosives detector dog which must learn nine to fourteen different odors, the cadaver dog is exposed to as many as 424 different volatile chemicals producing specific odors [5]. Exactly which odors the dog alerts on during a search is unknown [6].

Rebmann et al. [4] describe five basic stages and characteristics of human decomposition. During the first stage (the fresh stage), there is little change visible by humans; some dogs may even approach these bodies as though they were alive. However, at this stage, internal decomposition is beginning. In the second stage (the bloated stage), gas is produced within the body, causing it to swell. An odor of decay is present that is detectable by both a human and a dog. Entomological activity may be present at this stage. During the third stage (the decay stage), the gases have escaped the body, exposed skin color changes to a dark or black appearance, and a strong putrefaction odor is present. The fourth stage (the liquefaction stage) occurs as the body begins to dry. The odor produced reduces in intensity, but may become musty. (Galloway classifies this as the skeletonization stage even though body fluids may still be present [7].) Finally, the last stage (the skeletal stage or extreme decomposition) involves most of the remaining flesh drying to the point of mummification. The musty odor remains but is not as strong, and the distance to which it is detectable is much less than in the prior stages. All of these stages provide many odors that the cadaver dog must be capable of detecting.

Several variables contribute to the decaying process and influence the rate of decomposition. Our bodies contain microorganisms that are essential to life, but also play a role after death [4]. Environmental conditions play an essential role in the rapidity of decomposition as well. The location of the body (e.g., water, swamp, desert, depth of burial) influences the rate of decomposition. According to Bass [8], rapid decomposition "can only occur under the most favorable conditions of high temperatures and humidity, ample insect infestation, and the body shaded from direct sunlight".

MY BOLD, moment biological death occurs.

I'll also add these links to when a body smells and gives off scents. About 15 to 120 MINUTES in a light skinned body.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-68134.html

 

[brit1981]

I am sorry, but you are claiming to know abput DNA because you followed a murder trial? You certainly do not understand how DNA works, and I do not think following a murder case gives you any expertise. I do not mean to be rude, but it really sounds like you get your info from bad TV programmes and documentaries. Sorry, but anyone who has worked with DNA or even understands its composition would never think finding fifteen components in a mix of 37 gave any indication that the DNA belonged to any named individuel. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say somewhere that because there could be up to five different people's DNA, four must come from her family and the fifth from Madeleine herself!

the DNA could have belonged to several millon of people people including every single member of the Mccann family.
basicly think about it like this, you probably share several DNA components with strangers in your neighbourhood. Now imagine one of them dispappeared and your car was examined, and a tiny amount of DNA was found and this DNA was found to contain components common to both you and your neighbour, but the amount was too small to find the sequence. It would therefore be impossible which one of you it belonged to, but it would still be rather unfair to say you must have been involved because you cannot prove it was not their DNA. Incidently, if all the cars in that area had been examined they would have found plenty with these same components in, but again it would be no indicator that that car was involved in her abduction.


As for the dogs. Again this seems to be a thing with people getting their info from bad TV, they seem to think cadaver dogs gve proof a body was there, when in fact they are used as a general guide to finding bodies. The jersey care home fiasco proves that these dogs are not accurate (they alerted to what turned out to be coconut shell, not bones). And if the McCanns were asked if they had been near dead bodies, and where they could have gone near the scent I would think they would be breaking the law by not informing the police that as a GP kate had been near dead bodies. In the Uk when a perosn dies at home, especially an elderly person where death was not unexpected, it is normal for the GP to be sent out to the home, especially as a GP is often used to sign the death certificate in those sort of deaths.
It is all very well saying you are going by your analysis, but your analysis seems to be based on not a lot of knowledge and ignoring what the experts actually saying to make wild accusation accusing two doctors of being child killers. Unless you have proof I would have thought that was libelous.
Grimes said any scent could have been transferred, and that the dogs were not evidence of a cadaver. Do you ahve any informationt hat contradicts him, and again why is it your opinion that Lowe was wrong and the fact madeleine's DNA components were present means the DNA can be positively identified? Do you actually have any proof behind your claims?

And seriously you are getting your information from a website called crime scene investigator? these chemicals only last for a few weeks once a body has been moved,, and believe me if you had a decomposing body in your car for three months in the Algarve summer, you would not need dogs to detect it. Even a body wrapped up, would destroy the wrappings in those conditions, and would leave a lot of material in the car (not one reporter states seeing the mccanns steam cleaning their car, not incidently going anyway on their own where they could dispose of a body, which seems to be a gigantic flaw in the theory that they carried around a dead boy for three months, and then hid it somewhere else whilst being tailed by the world's media).

 

[brit1981]

Also biological death occurrs some time after death if that makes any sense, as it can take up to an hour or more in some cases for all organs to die.

 

[rpgman]

I am sorry, but you are claiming to know abput DNA because you followed a murder trial? You certainly do not understand how DNA works, and I do not think following a murder case gives you any expertise. I do not mean to be rude, but it really sounds like you get your info from bad TV programmes and documentaries. Sorry, but anyone who has worked with DNA or even understands its composition would never think finding fifteen components in a mix of 37 gave any indication that the DNA belonged to any named individuel. Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not say somewhere that because there could be up to five different people's DNA, four must come from her family and the fifth from Madeleine herself!

the DNA could have belonged to several millon of people people including every single member of the Mccann family.
basicly think about it like this, you probably share several DNA components with strangers in your neighbourhood. Now imagine one of them dispappeared and your car was examined, and a tiny amount of DNA was found and this DNA was found to contain components common to both you and your neighbour, but the amount was too small to find the sequence. It would therefore be impossible which one of you it belonged to, but it would still be rather unfair to say you must have been involved because you cannot prove it was not their DNA. Incidently, if all the cars in that area had been examined they would have found plenty with these same components in, but again it would be no indicator that that car was involved in her abduction.


As for the dogs. Again this seems to be a thing with people getting their info from bad TV, they seem to think cadaver dogs gve proof a body was there, when in fact they are used as a general guide to finding bodies. The jersey care home fiasco proves that these dogs are not accurate (they alerted to what turned out to be coconut shell, not bones). And if the McCanns were asked if they had been near dead bodies, and where they could have gone near the scent I would think they would be breaking the law by not informing the police that as a GP kate had been near dead bodies. In the Uk when a perosn dies at home, especially an elderly person where death was not unexpected, it is normal for the GP to be sent out to the home, especially as a GP is often used to sign the death certificate in those sort of deaths.
It is all very well saying you are going by your analysis, but your analysis seems to be based on not a lot of knowledge and ignoring what the experts actually saying to make wild accusation accusing two doctors of being child killers. Unless you have proof I would have thought that was libelous.
Grimes said any scent could have been transferred, and that the dogs were not evidence of a cadaver. Do you ahve any informationt hat contradicts him, and again why is it your opinion that Lowe was wrong and the fact madeleine's DNA components were present means the DNA can be positively identified? Do you actually have any proof behind your claims?

And seriously you are getting your information from a website called crime scene investigator? these chemicals only last for a few weeks once a body has been moved,, and believe me if you had a decomposing body in your car for three months in the Algarve summer, you would not need dogs to detect it. Even a body wrapped up, would destroy the wrappings in those conditions, and would leave a lot of material in the car (not one reporter states seeing the mccanns steam cleaning their car, not incidently going anyway on their own where they could dispose of a body, which seems to be a gigantic flaw in the theory that they carried around a dead boy for three months, and then hid it somewhere else whilst being tailed by the world's media).

oh, gee, here we go again.

I prove you wrong that the dogs DID alert, and you can't back it up, so you resort to stating I'm ill informed, lol. Didn't you state Martin claimed he didn't get any alerts?

I give you links stating that biological death can occur between 15 and 120 minutes and therefor, a cadaver dog would pick that scent up and you state WRONGLY that a dog couldn't pick it up in the time Maddie was last seen to when the police arrived. All wrong.

And, you state I don't have a lot (the term 'a great deal', would have been a better choice of words) knowledge, lol. Please, I have plenty of knowledge.

Are you saying Kate never stated she was near dead bodies prior to going on vacation (holiday)?

Are you saying that Kate never stated she brought the Cuddle Cat to work with her?

And, I stated all this was IMO....I have an opinion, and I'm allowed to state it.

 

[rpgman]

Also biological death occurrs some time after death if that makes any sense, as it can take up to an hour or more in some cases for all organs to die.

and, that's plently of time for a scent to be there, and a dog pick that scent up, which is the opposite of what you stated earlier. Your 'flip, flopping'.

So, which is it? How long, does it take for a body to give off a scent and for a dog to alert to it?

In my opinion, there was ample time for a body to leave a scent that a dog could pick up.

 

[rpgman]

And seriously you are getting your information from a website called crime scene investigator?

It was from the following lol:

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool:
An Analysis of Prior Studies

Jonathan K. Dorriety
Kaplan University, School of Criminal Justice
Chicago, IL

From the Journal of Forensic Identification
Vol. 57, No. 5, September/October 2007*

 

[brit1981]

You can have an opinion, but you cannot accuse people of killing a child, and then claim that is not libelous and is Ok because you wrote its your opinion. Its still an accusation of the most serious kind. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, and then claim it is OK because they wrote in my opinion.

And no you do not seem to have any knowledge of DNA or cadaver dogs from what yu are writing here. Grimes says there were minor indicators, but nothing that gave any evidence. Lowe states it is impossible to identify the DNA as belonging to anyone, yet you seem to be implying you have enough evidence to accuse these parents of killing their child. So if Grimes says he found no hard evidence, Lowe said no DNA was identifiable, and no material was identified as being nay particular bodily material, what is your evidence apart from internet rumour?

And I have never stated kate did not say she went near dead bodies. As a GP part of her job is to be the call out if someone dies at home as described above. If she was asked if she had been near dead bodies recently, why would she lie if she had been near them. It is an easy enough thing to discover if it is the truth or not. I have never heard any concrete claims that she did say this, just internet rumour, but conversly there has never been anyone who has said she did not have to go out to the houses of the recently deceased (and all her colleagues etc would know).

And I said it can take over an hour for organs to die, not for decomposition to set in. You said the scent appears straight after biological death, and I pointed out that biological death was not immediate as it meant all organs had to die, and these die at varying rates.

 

[brit1981]

You admitted earlier to using a site called crime scene investigator.

 

[rpgman]

You admitted earlier to using a site called crime scene investigator.

Yes, I did, and that's where this article came from. What? That's not well respected enough for you?

Cadaver Dogs as a Forensic Tool:
An Analysis of Prior Studies

Jonathan K. Dorriety
Kaplan University, School of Criminal Justice
Chicago, IL

From the Journal of Forensic Identification
Vol. 57, No. 5, September/October 2007*

 

[brit1981]

no i do not respect the website, nor do i respect people accusing people of child killing when they have no proof, and have to resort to "its my opinion". Do you not realise the seriousness of your accusation?

 

[rpgman]

You can have an opinion, but you cannot accuse people of killing a child, and then claim that is not libelous and is Ok because you wrote its your opinion. Its still an accusation of the most serious kind. Anyone can accuse anyone else of anything, and then claim it is OK because they wrote in my opinion.

And no you do not seem to have any knowledge of DNA or cadaver dogs from what yu are writing here. Grimes says there were minor indicators, but nothing that gave any evidence. Lowe states it is impossible to identify the DNA as belonging to anyone, yet you seem to be implying you have enough evidence to accuse these parents of killing their child. So if Grimes says he found no hard evidence, Lowe said no DNA was identifiable, and no material was identified as being nay particular bodily material, what is your evidence apart from internet rumour?

And I have never stated kate did not say she went near dead bodies. As a GP part of her job is to be the call out if someone dies at home as described above. If she was asked if she had been near dead bodies recently, why would she lie if she had been near them. It is an easy enough thing to discover if it is the truth or not. I have never heard any concrete claims that she did say this, just internet rumour, but conversly there has never been anyone who has said she did not have to go out to the houses of the recently deceased (and all her colleagues etc would know).

And I said it can take over an hour for organs to die, not for decomposition to set in. You said the scent appears straight after biological death, and I pointed out that biological death was not immediate as it meant all organs had to die, and these die at varying rates.

And, I stated the dog can pick up the scent of decomp after biological death, which can be 15 to 120 minutes, and you stated that wasn't enough time for when she was last seen to when she went missing. Correct?

I say it is.

 

[rpgman]

no i do not respect the website, nor do i respect people accusing people of child killing when they have no proof, and have to resort to "its my opinion". Do you not realise the seriousness of your accusation?

I didn't accuse anyone of child killing. Show me where?

For all I know, it could have been an accident, or anything else.

I never accused anyone of killing anyone.

I'm discussing DNA, dog alerts, etc, NOT accusing ANYONE of KILLING anyone.

IMO, the dog alerted to decomp EVENTS.

 

[brit1981]

They can only pick up the scent for for weeks after the body is gone. the searches were done over twelve weeks after the McCanns last set foot in the flat, so unless the PJ, other guests, and the MW resort are all in on it, I do not see how they could have kept her body there for eight weeks. And again Grimes states himself that the dogs alerts mean nothing without actual evidence (do not forget the coconut fiasco in jersey, I think it may have even been the same dog). But a body that could only have been fully dead for a max of two hours, would not leave enough chemicals to be found three months later, unless it was left there and somehow removed after the McCanns had access to it.

And again where is your evidence that contradicts Lowe and Grimes and proves that there is evidence of a body, and her DNA could be found.

 

[brit1981]

Kate gave lame reasons why the dog alerted (even though you stated they didn't alert, which I gave you PROVE they did alert). Her reasons were pretty lame IMO. She took Cuddle Cat to work, and she was around cadaver's prior to leaving on holiday (vacation) even though she's a General Practitioner. lol

In my opinion, the McCann's are pretty lucky for not being prosecuted. Unfortunately, they didn't find enough evidence. In my opinion, being medical doctors, they were smarter and knew how to clean up and hide DNA and give lame excuses to dog alert hits, or as you would state, decomp event.

QUOTE]

So what are you accusing them of then? And why do you think a GP would not be around a body, when it is common for them to be called out to home deaths.

 

[rpgman]

They can only pick up the scent for for weeks after the body is gone. the searches were done over twelve weeks after the McCanns last set foot in the flat, so unless the PJ, other guests, and the MW resort are all in on it, I do not see how they could have kept her body there for eight weeks. And again Grimes states himself that the dogs alerts mean nothing without actual evidence (do not forget the coconut fiasco in jersey, I think it may have even been the same dog). But a body that could only have been fully dead for a max of two hours, would not leave enough chemicals to be found three months later, unless it was left there and somehow removed after the McCanns had access to it.

And again where is your evidence that contradicts Lowe and Grimes and proves that there is evidence of a body, and her DNA could be found.

I showed you what Grimes stated.... the dogs 'alerted'. Both cadaver and blood. You stated they didn't, correct?

We all know the 'alerts' need to be corroborated and going by just the 'alert's' isn't enough evidence and not enough DNA was picked up that can positivity identify it was Maddie.

 

[rpgman]

Kate gave lame reasons why the dog alerted (even though you stated they didn't alert, which I gave you PROVE they did alert). Her reasons were pretty lame IMO. She took Cuddle Cat to work, and she was around cadaver's prior to leaving on holiday (vacation) even though she's a General Practitioner. lol

In my opinion, the McCann's are pretty lucky for not being prosecuted. Unfortunately, they didn't find enough evidence. In my opinion, being medical doctors, they were smarter and knew how to clean up and hide DNA and give lame excuses to dog alert hits, or as you would state, decomp event.

QUOTE]

So what are you accusing them of then? And why do you think a GP would not be around a body, when it is common for them to be called out to home deaths.

All I'm saying is they didn't have enough to prosecute. Isn't that what I stated? Did I accuse anyone of killing anyone? NO.