Capabilities of the Dogs

I was unaware that the samples from the apartment were quite so inconclusive. There is much mention of lack of dna or good dna. Now G had to go to UK for an example of M's dna and produced a pillowcase. What if he brought a pillowcase that didn't actually have her dna on it? Or was there mention of it having dna of a female child of the McCanns but not Amelie?
I think it was produced as a control sample rather than the fact there was no dna of M( or supposedly M) in the flat, as the PJ would surely have had access to the clothing she was supposed to have worn. I cannot see them not requesting it. They then had to have something to compare to, hence pillowcase.
It's very hard to grasp all this, not being a scientist, but then it's meant to be confusing.
The FFS examined the samples because I read that the PJ were keen not to be accused of bias. Anyone know if the findings Candy posted above were the first or second conclusions of John Lowe? The 2 sets were different I believe.

dogs don't lie wrote:Honestly can't see an adult pulling out a sofa to sneeze though, if it was on a wall that can be seen without moving furniture, fair enough.

I'm almost sure it was mentioned somewhere that the sofa had been moved. Maybe in GA's book.

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Honestly can't see an adult pulling out a sofa to sneeze though, if it was on a wall that can be seen without moving furniture, fair enough.

I'm almost sure it was mentioned somewhere that the sofa had been moved. Maybe in GA's book.

I think, but my memory is poor, that I read that Kate or Gerry had said they moved it because the children threw cards behind it..

That does sound familiar to me about the cards.

There was another supply of the childs DNA available . It was a small amount blood on a card ,the ones done in every baby unit in England ,and it arrived to thepj ,I think .? so Gerry neeed another one to make certain ,and that's his pillowcase one , ,..was spoken of lots on mcf,couple years ago. Well it was said to be a match . also said to be a female child of Gerry ,but it was not Amelias,so unless he had another daughter ,it had to be maddies .well at that stage of what we knew. hope this helps . joyce1938

A single sneeze, on expulsion can travel at a speed of 95 miles per hour, however it can be up to 630 miles per hour, under the right conditions and can release at least 40,000 droplets, which go some way towards understanding why sneezing has been sites as the the commonest way to spread airborne infections.

The distance which a sneeze can travel depends on several factors working together at the same time. Firstly, it depends on the wind speed and the direction, humidity, temperature, pressure, elevation and the strength of the person who is sneezing. However, it is believed that a single sneeze can travel up to 40 meters on average, but if wind assisted it can travel substantially further, with larger droplets dropping off after being airborne for between 2 to 3 meters. Therefore the more refined the droplets the greater the travelling distance.......

http://www.health.wikinut.com/How-far-can-a-sneeze-travel/1c4s4r1m/

If you believe that the room was cleaned(I do!) and the clothes and cuddlecat were washed then the job of finding anything was made more difficult. FSS still suggest some results point to Maddie (read my posts above) interpretation of results differ depending on who does them and I if there is an agenda,which countries legislation you follow etc,all are relevant.

A sneeze could easily spray that area,or a violent throttle causing bleeding,a fall........take your pick Neveronasunday.....

A tile was removed as had blood contamination ,behind settee. I think a very good clean was done ,using bleach or similar . So think that couldn't be certain of the Dna ,would have been harder to get results after a thorough clean . Although dna was there ,but no conclusive evidence . I do think that all this type of evidence ,would be like a secondry thing ,but need a lot more to get anywhere. But could conclude some cases . joyce1938

chirpyinsect wrote:
I think it was produced as a control sample rather than the fact there was no dna of M( or supposedly M) in the flat, as the PJ would surely have had access to the clothing she was supposed to have worn. I cannot see them not requesting it. They then had to have something to compare to, hence pillowcase.

Very good point.

I cant recall when we have seen it lately ,it may have beena video of mr amaral talking about results from the dna . I am certain that he said ,the first time ,it was by telephone ,and results were high for it being maddie . then it allchanges whenit came formally.yuk. So what the heck happened meanwhile ? joyce1938

Shit, so Madeleine maybe had a nose bleed, went behind the sofa to get the cards then sneezed? That is believable, but what about the cadaver odour then?

Neveronasunday wrote:

Is it possible that Keela would have detected blood spots in any house? Your house, my house, anywhere where people have been

But that the blood dog (Keela) alert only becomes relevant if the crime scene dog (Eddie) has detected a potential crime (cadaver scent or larger accumulations of blood)?

I have no doubt that Eddie's detection of cadaver scent in certain places (the places where he alerted but Keela didn't) is relevant and suggests a death, almost certainly that of Maddie

The question is where it occurred

If, as I have suggested, Keela's nose was so good that it would detect dried blood almost anywhere if asked, it's possible that M died elsewhere but the cadaver scent was transferred to the Eddie locations via clothing etc

Or course she would. That's why, as you have explained, Eddie goes in first to identify the haystack, as Martin Grime described it.

The combination of Eddie and Keela appears to be twofold:

1) Eddie goes in first to identify the potential scent of death. If he finds it, Keela is launched to locate the scent of blood. If she finds it in the same place, this indicates death taking place at that location, rather than cadaver storage, as cadavers don't bleed.

2) Eddie can scent death and blood (don't know and can't find if the signals he uses for each are different). Therefore, if he indicates, Keela must also be deployed as the definite presence of a body - not just blood - can only be confirmed if she DOESN'T indicate. And if Keela doesn't indicate, a body is conclusively there.

My interpretation of the fact that both dogs signalled behind the sofa indicates that the victim bled as well as possibly died there, lying there for sufficient time for cadaverine to develop. But it is possible that she only bled there.

However, the fact that Keela only indicated the tiles behind the sofa and the bottom of the curtain behind the sofa indicates that even if a bleeding only took place behind the sofa, cadaver presence was found at the other locations.

In conclusion, it is most likely that someone bled behind the sofa, leading to death there. However, it is possible that the victim bled behind the sofa, was rescued from there before death (perhaps an attempt at resussitation was made?), but that death subsequently occurred sadly anyway, the body was present in the apartment and was in contact with the personal items associated with Maddie and Kate.

Could be wrong, as all of this is only my layman's interpretation. Please correct any flaws in it!

We would know more if we knew for definite how Eddie indicates for blood and cadaverine. Is the signal the same or different? If the bark is for cadaverine and, say, he freezes like Keela for blood, only then we would know for certain that a corpse was behind that sofa as well as blood, showing that death almost certainly occurred there. But if his signal is the same for blood as for cadaverine i.e., he barks for both, then we can only say it is most likely she died and lay there.

dogs don't lie wrote:Shit, so Madeleine maybe had a nose bleed, went behind the sofa to get the cards then sneezed? That is believable, but what about the cadaver odour then?

The bottom of some ones shoes,(tongue in cheek).

chirpyinsect wrote:I was unaware that the samples from the apartment were quite so inconclusive. There is much mention of lack of dna or good dna. Now G had to go to UK for an example of M's dna and produced a pillowcase. What if he brought a pillowcase that didn't actually have her dna on it? Or was there mention of it having dna of a female child of the McCanns but not Amelie?
I think it was produced as a control sample rather than the fact there was no dna of M( or supposedly M) in the flat, as the PJ would surely have had access to the clothing she was supposed to have worn. I cannot see them not requesting it. They then had to have something to compare to, hence pillowcase.
It's very hard to grasp all this, not being a scientist, but then it's meant to be confusing.
The FFS examined the samples because I read that the PJ were keen not to be accused of bias. Anyone know if the findings Candy posted above were the first or second conclusions of John Lowe? The 2 sets were different I believe.

I think it could quite well have been a control sample that was requested as what little DNA as was found in the apartment would be confused as they all appeared to share clothes etc, and such a small space. And, as such, Gerry could have provided anything he wanted as that control....

Joyce's assertion that the PJ had the hospital heel sample from her birth is paramount. I have never heard that they had this before. Can anyone point towards evidence that they categorically obtained this? It they did, the the heel sample would be the definitive control and there would be no need to return to Rothley to provide another.

If the heel sample was not in the PJ's posession, then they would have been working from whatever GM decided to give them as their 'control'. Just my thoughts, not based on evidence.

Just a quick visual reminder of which dog scented where:

Dee Coy wrote:Just a quick visual reminder of which dog scented where:

That's a good overview. Thanks Dee Coy.

I think they have got Madeleine's top wrong though as I thought it was the airplane top belonging to Sean that was flagged up by Eddie.

dogs don't lie wrote:Shit, so Madeleine maybe had a nose bleed, went behind the sofa to get the cards then sneezed? That is believable, but what about the cadaver odour then?

1) The sofa may not always have been in that particular place
2) It didn't have to be her sneezing
3) Some blood could have been transferred from elsewhere (eg by the holidaymaker who was bleeding for 45 minutes)
4) Cadaver scent could be transferred by contaminated objects eg clothing

The cadaver scent is significant though, because it indicates that somebody died somewhere, and there's a significant chance that it was Maddie

But the issues with blood and cadaver scent transfer don't guarantee that the scene of the accident was 5a. And the fact that the blood was splattered so widely over walls and floor demands an explanation because in my opinion it isn't compatible with a kid falling off a sofa

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Honestly can't see an adult pulling out a sofa to sneeze though, if it was on a wall that can be seen without moving furniture, fair enough.

I'm almost sure it was mentioned somewhere that the sofa had been moved. Maybe in GA's book.

Goncalo on the sofa, from 3 different interviews on McCannfiles:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id165.html

G.A. – There is indicia behind the sofa [of the McCanns' living room]. The sofa is under a window that looks onto the street, which is three or four metres high. It is normal behaviour, and justice deals with normal behaviour, that the parents would have moved the sofa away from the window, given the fact that they had small children and alone at home. The window was easy to open and the shutters were not functioning…

Focus – But why "accidental"?

G.A. - I don't say it's accidental. Up to that moment, we could only reach an accidental death, because we had not worked on the rest yet. We had yet to understand what had happened there. Cadaver odour and blood from the child appear next to the sofa. Death has presumably taken place there. There are no doubts that it is a death and that it took place on that spot. We are not going to say that the mother did this or that, that would really be speculating, the only hypothesis is the accidental death. In the continuation of the investigations is where we could go further or not.

Q - So, what are we talking about?

A - About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol (a sleeping pill (sic: solution)). We never had access to the girl's medical history, so we don't know whether she was healthy or not. We can only speculate. There are many very strange details.

Q - What do you think could have happened that night?

A - Both the British and Portuguese police, and even the prosecutor, who has already changed his mind, thought the same. We talked about death by others, not murder. In the room, blood and cadaver odour was found just below a window where a sofa was. The father was talking to a friend just outside that window for a while. The girl was not a heavy sleeper, that's what the parents said. Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. But the parents, for the girl not to go out, moved it away from the wall. Madeleine could have fallen.

-------

Q – It was said that Kate was very cold. But I've seen her cry.

A - So did I. She is not cold. There was a moment, in a meeting with them, when we set out the sofa theory. Kate put her head down, looking distant, and, after a few seconds, she looked up again as if nothing had happened. She looked like she was escaping from the role that she was interpreting.

Q - When you raised the hypothesis that the girl might have died after falling off the sofa, did Kate McCann answer?

A - She did not answer, she just dropped her head for a moment, as if she was about to faint. She had an emotional collapse that lasted just a moment.



According to you, what happened on May 3, 2007?

Madeleine McCann died from accidentally falling behind the sofa in the living room of the apartment. That couch had been moved during the alleged disappearance. I think that someone discovered the body, concealed it, cleaned everything and pushed the sofa to the window.

Who?

The parents of Madeleine.

On what basis can you say that?

The dogs brought in by the British police discovered cadaver odour behind the sofa and in the bedroom of the parents of the girl. Also on the small child's toy, the clothes of Kate and in the trunk and the keys to the car that was rented later.

And from The Truth of the Lie:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1708-chapter-11-analysis-of-a-crime-scene-apartment-5a

We notice that the sofa, situated under one of the windows, has been moved: the back of it is crushing the thick curtains. If these were closed to keep the light out of the room, it's curious that those at the other window were left open.

- That sofa could have been moved when they searched the apartment looking for the little girl.

- It's possible, but consider: the window is 3 metres above the road and directly overlooks the pavement. You can bet your life that the parents were not going to leave the sofa pushed against the wall, risking seeing their children climbing onto it and falling.
- Nothing surprises me any more on the part of those parents.

- Yes, but why did they push the sofa back under the window so hastily, judging by the position of the curtains.

- No doubt it was during the searches; that could have been done by a police officer or anyone else who was present in the house.

It's the father who clarifies this point for us. He, himself, pushed the sofa against the wall because the children would not stop playing behind it. He did not consider the possibility of a fall from the window. The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.

Admin wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Honestly can't see an adult pulling out a sofa to sneeze though, if it was on a wall that can be seen without moving furniture, fair enough.

I'm almost sure it was mentioned somewhere that the sofa had been moved. Maybe in GA's book.

I think, but my memory is poor, that I read that Kate or Gerry had said they moved it because the children threw cards behind it..

From Gerry's Arguido statement:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

--- On the day of arrival, he does not know if the blinds in Madeleine's room were open or closed. He did not open them again, and does not know if somebody else did. When confronted with a testimony that states having seen the blinds on this window open after their arrival, he says that it was not him who opened them. When asked about the window behind one of the sofas in the living room, he says that yes, he remembers the window but does not remember if the blinds were also closed.
--- Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was next to the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit closer as his children threw objects behind it, mainly playing cards. When asked, he does not know if any of the children was behind the sofa or passed behind this sofa.

chirpyinsect wrote:I was unaware that the samples from the apartment were quite so inconclusive. There is much mention of lack of dna or good dna. Now G had to go to UK for an example of M's dna and produced a pillowcase. What if he brought a pillowcase that didn't actually have her dna on it? Or was there mention of it having dna of a female child of the McCanns but not Amelie?
I think it was produced as a control sample rather than the fact there was no dna of M( or supposedly M) in the flat, as the PJ would surely have had access to the clothing she was supposed to have worn. I cannot see them not requesting it. They then had to have something to compare to, hence pillowcase.
It's very hard to grasp all this, not being a scientist, but then it's meant to be confusing.
The FFS examined the samples because I read that the PJ were keen not to be accused of bias. Anyone know if the findings Candy posted above were the first or second conclusions of John Lowe? The 2 sets were different I believe.

IIRC.

John Buck was there at OC ~12:00pm on the 4th. Clothes inc Madeleine's were washed on the Saturday and then some, chosen by the M's, were given to the PJ on the 5th.

It doesn't seem to require rocket science levels of intelligence to work out what was going on. I think GA did admit his errors here but even he was under orders it seems?

According to the records reproduced by Dee Coy, above, Det Amaral says all of the following:

I don't say it's accidental.

About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol.

Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. Madeleine could have fallen.

We talked about death by others, not murder.

Madeleine McCann died from accidentally falling behind the sofa in the living room of the apartment.

Like the rest of us, he appears to have problems attaching a convincing theory to the blood and cadaverine trail. Like so many aspects of this case, nothing adds up

So Eddie barked to signal cadaver odour in the parents' bedroom but Keela didn't indicate there so no blood. This suggests to me that Eddie would have a different alert for blood than cadaver odour otherwise how would they know what he was signalling?
Both dogs indicated behind the sofa so to me, it looks like whatever injury she sustained happened there. Blood which Keela found and cadaver scent meaning she lay there for at least 90 minutes, if that is how long it takes for a child.
Supposing she had been hit or strangled ( sorry horrible) and fell backwards in the presence of an adult, surely they would not have left her there that long.Even in a panic you wouldn't leave her there. More likely to get something to wrap her in or place her body in and get it away from the apartment, knowing or at least suspecting that the police would do forensics. At this point I am assuming no pre planning and no earlier death. This is all supposing there is a reason to hide the body.
I believe the neglect was a concotion after the event so in order for odour to develop, perhaps whatever she was wrapped in was left behind the sofa then moved to the bedroom. No blood indication in there says she was cleaned up and placed in something which means no blood was in contact with any surface in the room.
The weak flowerbed indication and the veranda alert say she was hidden in something as no one would leave a body in view. And again no blood was indicated to.Who would suspect a sports bag though?
Does anyone agree this is possible?

Neveronasunday wrote:According to the records reproduced by Dee Coy, above, Det Amaral says all of the following:

I don't say it's accidental.

About an accident. The child could have fallen from a sofa, could have had an accident with Calpol.

Perhaps she heard her father and climbed to the sofa below the window. Madeleine could have fallen.

We talked about death by others, not murder.

Madeleine McCann died from accidentally falling behind the sofa in the living room of the apartment.

Like the rest of us, he appears to have problems attaching a convincing theory to the blood and cadaverine trail. Like so many aspects of this case, nothing adds up

Don't think he has problems with the cadaverine/blood trail at all. It is this that convinces him death occurred in the flat, and led to the arguido statuses of the McCanns. He also is firm that events happened behind the sofa.

As he wasn't there, and there was a massive clean-up to conceal most of the evidence, he doesn't claim to know how events unfolded - how could he? I think that adds up perfectly.

He has always maintained accidental death afaik, no inconsistency there.

When they said the scent of death was found in the flower bed, which one did they mean? Back or front? If it was at the back underneath the veranda, she may have fallen down into the bed and died. Body then transferred into the flat when found. Still doesn't explain the blood on the wall though.
New here, I post under different name in the Complete Mystery forum, be gentle with me. Can be a bit challenging over there at times. Have been following the case for several yrs but I think what the dogs found is especially interesting so decided to join when I saw this discussion.