Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[SuperdadV8]

Is HCW saying it was murder (not manslaughter, not causing accidental death)?

Murder, right!

 

[Dlk79]

Is HCW saying it was murder (not manslaughter, not causing accidental death)?

I think this has been touched on before, but I believe in German law, certain crimes can be classified as "Murder", whereas in UK law, they would be often classed as "Mansalughter".

The criteria for Murder in German law is-

"whoever kills a human being out of murderous intent, to satisfy sexual desires, out of greed or otherwise base motives, insidiously or cruelly, or with means dangerous to the public, or in order to commit or cover up another crime..."

So IF what happened to MM was an unintended death in 5A as a result of a botched sexual abuse attempt, then that would still classify as Murder under German law but possibly only Manslaughter in the UK. Could explain the differing views of each LE.

 

[mrjitty]

The use of these dogs was suggested by the NPIA
P.J. POLICE FILES: MARK HARRISON NATIONAL SEARCH ADVISER

Which kind of goes against the whole corrupt PJ trying to help the tourism industry thing ....

 

[mrjitty]

Given the spectacular ineptitude/carelessness/corruption of the original police investigation,

RSBM

Link?

 

[mrjitty]

The sofa alert was not only Eddie. It was Keela as well

For me this is why the dogs remain relevant.

Both dogs alerted there AND it meant forensics were discovered. It is not like the dogs whiffed. There actually was material there.

 

[mrjitty]

The investigation is about murder.

If a murder can be proved and sentenced, any kind of abduction gets
subordinate.

I do not think, that the german prosecuters solved any 5A riddle. Because even PJ and OG didn't.....

But the seem to have other clues....

I agree with this.

I think what they have must sidestep the 5A riddle.

 

[mrjitty]

Well, the only known facts from the original investigation is that a child went missing. There is no other fact about what happened before and after. This is what puzzles me with your scepticism. What do you consider as known facts?

We have the entire case files on the internet, plus the Lisbon proceedings which detail large amounts of evidence.

The idea we have no facts apart from one cannot be sustained.

Since HCW has only mentioned that CB is a suspect for murdering MM, I think he is treding carefully with the evidence he has not to accuse CB of abduction yet. And this to my eyes seems a very careful approach.

What is unusual is that he has positively accused CB, whilst presenting no prima facie case.

In other cases I have followed through trial, the charges are known, so one can form an initial view of guilt/innocence based on alleged facts and evidence

In this case, HCW has presented 2 or 3 evidential points, which frankly, don't stand up a murder charge.

So I would want to know what his evidence is, before forming an opinion based on mere accusation.

 

[C.greek]

We have the entire case files on the internet, plus the Lisbon proceedings which detail large amounts of evidence.

The idea we have no facts apart from one cannot be sustained.



What is unusual is that he has positively accused CB, whilst presenting no prima facie case.

In other cases I have followed through trial, the charges are known, so one can form an initial view of guilt/innocence based on alleged facts and evidence.

These are not facts that present any discrepancy with CB murdering MM.

I thought most were presented when the suspect is charged or even during trial (to the media that is). Not sure how it goes in Germany but I am not surprised we have not been told of the whole case BKA have against CB

 

[C.greek]

For me this is why the dogs remain relevant.

Both dogs alerted there AND it meant forensics were discovered. It is not like the dogs whiffed. There actually was material there.

Below is the Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ of the alerts.

"From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

P.J. POLICE FILES: ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST 11 VOLUMES

Moreover, forensics did not show blood. DNA was indeed identified as being of 3 live people(2 from the police force and one of GM).

It would also be useful to remind ourselves that Eddie is trained to search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood and is also trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination. Keela is trained to detect blood. Both dogs will alert to dried blood of live human beings.

 

[Lilly b]

Is this true..

Few people know that cadaverine, the odorous substance that detects corpse dogs, is also found in small quantities in "everyday materials", for example in sauerkraut or fermented grain. Much more interesting, however: also in human saliva, usually in very small quantities - but not when teeth and / or gums are inflamed and decomposition processes are in progress, increasingly also in older people. Dog handlers know that.

 

[Dave55]

For me this is why the dogs remain relevant.

Both dogs alerted there AND it meant forensics were discovered. It is not like the dogs whiffed. There actually was material there.

i think you will find there is dna material everywhere that humans have been. doesnt mean its what teh dogs have alerted to...as in the coconut shell farce

 

[mrjitty]

Your perspective which, of course, you're entitled to.

But it's absolutely not mine so I think it's best to just agree to disagree, and wait to see what HCW has in store for us in 2021.

I do think it's interesting how many people are willing to assume guilt based on the mere say so of a german prosecutor.

As a lawyer - that is a place I am never going, as a matter of principle

Put your evidence on the table.

 

[Dave55]

I'm interested in the whole concept of cadaver residual scent detection. In Grimes white paper he seems to say the whole residual scent thing was devised by Mark harrison in 2005 as a way of providing intelligence to police investigations. Is there any evidence of residual scent being used as intelligence before this. Were the dogs sent to Luz as a part of Harrisions experiment. What is the science to support scent detection after 3 months...none. How could the dog detect the scent in a flower bed when there were no physical remains after 3 months being exposed to sun wind and rain.
Have the dogs ever been tested to see if they react to other things...stale urine for example. Again I think the answers no

 

[Lilly b]

Does anyone know which youth detention center CB went to in 1993/1994 after getting caught for molestation of a 6 year old

 

[Dlk79]

I'm interested in the whole concept of cadaver residual scent detection. In Grimes white paper he seems to say the whole residual scent thing was devised by Mark harrison in 2005 as a way of providing intelligence to police investigations. Is there any evidence of residual scent being used as intelligence before this. Were the dogs sent to Luz as a part of Harrisions experiment. What is the science to support scent detection after 3 months...none. How could the dog detect the scent in a flower bed when there were no physical remains after 3 months being exposed to sun wind and rain.
Have the dogs ever been tested to see if they react to other things...stale urine for example. Again I think the answers no

In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes.
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene

Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.

What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
residual scent

 

[mrjitty]

In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes.
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene

Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.

What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
residual scent

Thanks for this

IIRC one of the Grimes dogs had pinpointed an outdoor "zwischenlager" which was key to resolving a case.

 

[mrjitty]

These are not facts that present any discrepancy with CB murdering MM.

I thought most were presented when the suspect is charged or even during trial (to the media that is). Not sure how it goes in Germany but I am not surprised we have not been told of the whole case BKA have against CB

Maybe - we simply don't know what the BKA theory of the case is.

As I said upthread, what may be challenging is 5A could be involved in the trial with evidential burdens reversed

i.e. the defence does not need to prove their version to BARD

They can simply raise a possibility, based off an evidential foundation.

I can't comment if HCW can head that off at the pass, as I simply have no idea what his case is - but it seems clear this is the port FF will set sail for.

 

[tedtink]

Can the BKA question CB in relation to MM like they did (or didn't in 2013) whilst he is in prison now, as suggested by HCW in recent reports?
Not that he'll speak from what FF has said.

Or do they have to charge him first (prior to questioning) now that he has been declared a suspect?

 

[Dave55]

Below is the Central Division of Information Analysis - PJ of the alerts.

"From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.
If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'
On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'
Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

P.J. POLICE FILES: ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST 11 VOLUMES

Moreover, forensics did not show blood. DNA was indeed identified as being of 3 live people(2 from the police force and one of GM).

It would also be useful to remind ourselves that Eddie is trained to search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood and is also trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination. Keela is trained to detect blood. Both dogs will alert to dried blood of live human beings.

So w

In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.

Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes.
The CSI death dogs: Sniffing out the truth behind the crime-scene

Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.

What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.
residual scent

That seems to be the sum total of research. So no studies to see if the dog can be fooled by stale urine and other substances. As regards the 12 month test I've seen that study and as I understand the building was totally sealed.
I still don't see how an alert outside could happen with no physical remains . The scent would be dissipated

 

[Dave55]

These are not facts that present any discrepancy with CB murdering MM.

I thought most were presented when the suspect is charged or even during trial (to the media that is). Not sure how it goes in Germany but I am not surprised we have not been told of the whole case BKA have against CB

In Germany the suspect has access to all the evidence against them soon after arrest. That's a reason given by HCW as to why CB hadn't been questioned yet