Capabilities of the Dogs

candyfloss wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:A quick Google suggests this pruning incident is in her dairy and happened on the first morning (29th April?) Also mentioned was the blind to the patio door/window of their bedroom (directly above the bush?) was fixed because Gerry broke it.

Isn't all this a bit odd...........no scratch that, this is the McCann case. My mistake.

That does seem odd, second day into your holiday and you are pruning?

It is more than odd. Could I post the link, Candyfloss. It is a post by Nina from over the road from 2012 and I may be reading it wrong!

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:A quick Google suggests this pruning incident is in her dairy and happened on the first morning (29th April?) Also mentioned was the blind to the patio door/window of their bedroom (directly above the bush?) was fixed because Gerry broke it.

Isn't all this a bit odd...........no scratch that, this is the McCann case. My mistake.

That does seem odd, second day into your holiday and you are pruning?

It is more than odd. Could I post the link, Candyfloss. It is a post by Nina from over the road from 2012 and I may be reading it wrong!

No problem with links at all TTWO.

Thanks, Candyfloss. Here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5570p30-timeline-evening-3-5-07-as-from-8-00-p-m

From an earlier discussion about people bleeding in the apartment and also mention of dodgy shutters I found this in the files.

Witness Statement
Simon Andrew Fawkes
Occupation: Computer technician
Date: 22nd April 2008

Signature ______________________________________

I am married to Claire FAWKES and we have a daughter called R*** aged 3½. Last year I planned and reserved a holiday with MW in Portugal. I knew that they have good services and meet all the needs that we wanted for our family holiday. I made a two week booking, half board in the P da L resort in the Algarve.

We travelled from Gatwick on Saturday 31st March 2007 directly to Faro and were transported by minibus to the resort. We returned home on Saturday 14th April 2007.

The holiday was quite pleasant in spite of the fact that R*** suffered a cut to the chin at the crêche, the holidays passed peacefully.

Apart from R**** having fallen whilst under the care of MW nothing was stolen or missing from the apartment, nobody died in the apartment during our stay.

While we stayed in the apartment we were never victims of robbery or loss of our personal possessions, neither did we lose any object whilst we were in Portugal.

In my opinion the resort is a safe place and I never felt the presence of anyone strange or notice that anyone was watching our apartment.

With regard to the doors and windows I considered them to be safe, although I had some problem in closing the shutters in the bedroom where Claire and I slept - this was the bedroom facing the patio and the pool area. I remember that the shutter in R**** bedroom worked well and we would close it during the day to make sure she slept better.

At no time during our stay did I feel that the windows and doors had been forced or that there could have been any trespass on the property.

We would normally use the wooden door that led to the parking area in order to access the apartment, occasionally we would use the patio door - if Claire or I remained in the apartment. If we all left we would lock the patio door and use the wooden door.

As far as I can remember, there were two sofas in the living room area. One smaller sofa which was on the right when you entered by the patio door - the sofa was under the window, slightly at a distance from the wall - in order to have access to the curtains I think. The large sofa was directly opposite us when we entered by the patio door. I made a small sketch of the living room which was delivered as proof ref SAJF(1) to DC 4064 HOLLIDAY at 18h30 22 April 2008.
-----------------------
Note what he says about sofa placement.

And here is the statement regarding the occupants who stayed there from 14 to 21 st April. No kids yet they gave them a 2 bed apartment. Horrendous under occupancy surcharge normally.

LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
WITNESS TESTIMONY OF JUNE HUGHES
Occupation: Surgical Assistant

This statement, consisting of three pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have willfully states in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

Date: 29 April 2008
Signature:

I am the above referenced person and live at the address previously given to this police.

On the 14th of April of 2007 my partner Carlo A'AMROSIO and I were on holiday in Praia da Luz, Portugal. We have booked a reservation with Thomas Cook and were to stay in the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort.

Carlo and I travelled to the Glasgow airport directly to Faro.
When we arrived at the resort, we were given apartment 5A. There were still cleaning personnel in there when we arrived. They allowed us to enter. We checked and realized that we had not been given a key to the apartment and Carlo went to the reception to collect one.

I found the apartment very good. We arrived on Saturday and this night noticed that the blinds on the patio side door which gave way to the pool zone did not close. It appeared that someone had lifted them too much and the mechanism did not dislodge in order to shut them (page1). We reported this abnormality to the reception that same night. We reported this immediately because we found that the apartment could be at risk if it was not possible to close the door blinds. The apartment was also vulnerable for the fact that the entryway light (side of the street) was hanging and did not function. This made the entryway very dark. It was off from the street with a small parking zone between the street and the apartment.

Even though we communicated this issue of the blind, we did not expect them to rapidly address the issue. We were surprised when on Sunday morning a functionary came to fix the blind. The patio door blind was on the outside of the patio door. We used the principal entrance (next to the street) and would lock the patio door from the interior.

During our stay I do not remember having cut or hurt myself. It is possible that Carlo cut himself whilst shaving but I don't remember this.

Nothing was taken from our apartment and I did not notice anything suspect during our stay. I noticed that the gardeners would work on the garden close to the apartment 'pool-side 'three mornings (page 2) during our stay. The cleaning personnel would come very day.

I remember that the key to the apartment was a bit unusual. It was round and with cut segments. We noticed that the cleaning personnel knocked on the door once and would then enter in the apartment. In this sequence, we left the door always closed with the key in the lock. The next morning, the cleaning woman knocked on the door and entered normally independent of the door being locked with the key in the interior of the lock.

As far as I recall, the living woman sofa (to the right of the entry across the patio door) was slightly removed from the wall, around 60 cm.

We were not accompanied by children to Praia da Luz but noticed that the children seemed to have free access to the restaurant and were always very welcome. We would normally eat in different restaurants when we holidayed but would breakfast in the apartment and if I am not mistaken, lunched in our apartment.

We slept in the principal room where the blind was initially broken. We never took any food in the Tapas Bar. I do not know Gerry or Kate McCann and only heard of them after their daughter went missing. We returned on the 21st of April of 2007.

This statement is made by me and is truthful in accordance with my understanding.

This is interesting: building up a picture of 5a between 3 May and the end of July when the dogs moved in

I think it's worth looking into the possibility of cadaver scent in the cleaning water, or perhaps blood in washing water. Dee Coy's idea of washing down the verandah with it is worth pursuing. It seems an obvious way for it to end up on the verandah and flowerbed

Nonetheless, it's a bit far-fetched to imagine that water with cadaver scent in it in May early could still be detected by Eddie three months later

However, if, as Seahorse pointed out, Keela later alerted on branches of plants in the flowerbed (though I don't think we know the answer to that), it might mean that Eddie smelt blood rather than cadaver scent. And anybody, including a gardener, might have scratched themselves on the right sort of plant

The fact that Eddie's alerts in the flowerbed were weak seems consistent with all of these possibilities

The cleaning theory wasn't mine, Never, it's a brilliant intake of food for thought from Catupatree.

It would explain why the alert appeared more convincing on the veranda (covered) than in the flowerbed (exposed and diluted after dissipation of the water).

Something worth considering alongside Kate's unpaid gardening work. Very strange, that, and could have earned her recrimination from the gardener rather than gratitude.  I'd have been fuming if I were MW or the apartment owner. Frankly impossible to believe she would have pruned purely to 'help tidy the garden'.

This bit is from GMs interview, the PJ seemed confident of what Eddie and Keela found, imo of course.





- When confronted with the fact that Madeleine's DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations also described before, he says that he cannot explain.

Maddie's DNA may well have been found in those places but that isn't a surprise if she or things belonging to her were in those places, it's a question of working out whether the DNA came from a live Maddie, her blood (ie an injured Maddie) or a deceased Maddie. Was that ever established?

The Pj were getting somewhere at that time, then Gonçalo was removed. Wasn't there also mention of fluid consistent with frozen cadaver? Also, a clump of hair? Would GM not have said of course there's Maddies dna in the apartment? but he couldn't explain it?? What's the point in having a cadaver dog if they're to be ignored? This case is so messed up IMO.

dogs don't lie wrote:The Pj were getting somewhere at that time, then Gonçalo was removed. Wasn't there also mention of fluid consistent with frozen cadaver? Also, a clump of hair? Would GM not have said of course there's Maddies dna in the apartment? but he couldn't explain it?? What's the point in having a cadaver dog if they're to be ignored? This case is so messed up IMO.

I don't think they are ignored ddl, the police use them all the time even more so now than in 2007 it has been proved over and over how good they are. I don't think they would have paid out all that money to fly them over if they would then ignore them. And even more important they did it again this year, why on earth would they send them in again, if they did not believe their alerts?

I seem to remember that someone had said the blood spots might have been from mosquitos that had been splatted, is this a possible explanation for the blood being all over the wall? I agree about the dog who smelt the scent of death though. Somebody definitely died but the blood spots may not connected with the death. Presumably some of the blood that comes out of a mozzie when you squash it is the blood of the person they were feeding off.

candyfloss wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:The Pj were getting somewhere at that time, then Gonçalo was removed. Wasn't there also mention of fluid consistent with frozen cadaver? Also, a clump of hair? Would GM not have said of course there's Maddies dna in the apartment? but he couldn't explain it?? What's the point in having a cadaver dog if they're to be ignored? This case is so messed up IMO.

I don't think they are ignored ddl, the police use them all the time even more so now than in 2007 it has been proved over and over how good they are.  I don't think they would have paid out all that money to fly them over if they would then ignore them.  And even more important they did it again this year, why on earth would they send them in again, if they did not believe their alerts?  

Exactly candyfloss, I think it's more hard evidence they need.... Wonder what's happening with that hair?
IMO.

candyfloss wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:A quick Google suggests this pruning incident is in her dairy and happened on the first morning (29th April?) Also mentioned was the blind to the patio door/window of their bedroom (directly above the bush?) was fixed because Gerry broke it.

Isn't all this a bit odd...........no scratch that, this is the McCann case. My mistake.

That does seem odd, second day into your holiday and you are pruning?

And with what would you be pruning? Not standard practice to have secateurs in the inventory.

Catupatree wrote:I seem to remember that someone had said the blood spots might have been from mosquitos that had been splatted, is this a possible explanation for the blood being all over the wall? I agree about the dog who smelt the scent of death though. Somebody definitely died but the blood spots may not connected with the death. Presumably some of the blood that comes out of a mozzie when you squash it is the blood of the person they were feeding off.

I think it was aunty Phil who came up with that one. Either there was a mozzie invasion or the OC cleaners were rubbish at their job if that many splats were left on the wall.

chirpyinsect wrote:

Catupatree wrote:I seem to remember that someone had said the blood spots might have been from mosquitos that had been splatted, is this a possible explanation for the blood being all over the wall? I agree about the dog who smelt the scent of death though. Somebody definitely died but the blood spots may not connected with the death. Presumably some of the blood that comes out of a mozzie when you squash it is the blood of the person they were feeding off.

I think it was aunty Phil who came up with that one. Either there was a mozzie invasion or the OC cleaners were rubbish at their job if that many splats were left on the wall.

Just mozzies in that one apartment then? The dogs didn't alert at any other

But Keela would not have been sent into any other apartment because Eddie only detected a crime in the Mccann flat. So she never got the chance to find spots whether they were mozzies or not. If you do an internet search for mosquito blood on wall you get plenty of results eg http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=126818

I don't think the issue is the dogs' reliability or credibility.

I think the issue is that all of the evidence is so far circumstantial and it isn't strong enough to stand up in court, even when taken altogether to illustrate a pattern. As we 've seen by the questions raised on this thread, a good lawyer could argue all sorts of things to explain the blood drops and without strong evidence to provide proof that it's Madeleine's blood and that she is dead, a conviction would be unlikely. I'm a firm believer that the police know what happened. It's just problematic for them to take it to court.

An emergency tracheotomy behind the sofa would account for the 'blood splatters'.

Also would include a 'pact'.

Whooshed news at the time - a broken larynx.. etc.

Probably bang on.

IMO.

I have no doubts about the reliability of the dogs

But the PJ files state that only four blood spots were found on the back of the sofa

Blood spots on material are impossible to remove

Not compatible with someone spurting blood in the immediate vicinity

I would think there must be another explanation

Neveronasunday wrote:I have no doubts about the reliability of the dogs

But the PJ files state that only four blood spots were found on the back of the sofa

Blood spots on material are impossible to remove

Not compatible with someone spurting blood in the immediate vicinity

I would think there must be another explanation

Two spots were found on the sofa. A dry and wet swab was taken from each of these spots.

"Following that, the search and identification of spots, in natural and altered-wavelength light appropriate for the job, was made on the back of the blue, cloth-upholstered sofas that had been next to the wall. Two (2) spots were identified in that search.
Those spots were recovered using the above-mentioned swabs (two swabs per spot) they having been referenced as trace evidence numbers 14 and 15.
Photos 32 through 36: General location and detailed pictures of the spots numbered 14 and 15."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

And the conclusions from FFS on those spots:

"Weak and incomplete DNA results which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from cellular material on the wet and dry swabs (14A & B} from the back of the sofa.

A weak and incomplete DNA result which showed indications of having originated from more than one person was obtained from cellular material on the dry swab (15A) from the back of the sofa.

A DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which appeared to have originated from at least two males who had contributed the majority of the DNA was obtained from cellular material obtained from the wet swab of the sofa (15B). in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Gerald McCann or Madeline McCann contributed DNA to this result. The DNA from this swab has not been subjected to LCN DNA profiling tests."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Ok, what we have is blood and cadaver alerts around the Mcs apartment and hire car (though I remember an alert on one of the tapas 7) but where Keela alerts, there's blood, anybody's blood. So, does this mean the strong alert by the cupboard in the parents room, and the (not as strong) alert on the veranda and flowerbed was cadaver alerts? Is that right or have I got something wrong here?
IMO

Thank you for that correction Seahorse. I was using this link: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BLOOD.htm

As you say, two different methods were used for the collection of samples from each of the two spots on the back of the sofa. I was mistakenly counting that as four spots

Two spots on the sofa does not indicate a bloodbath of the sort that the "death behind the sofa" theory indicates. And it's out of proportion to the larger number of blood spots on the wall, especially when one considers that blood is impossible to remove from cloth

I would therefore conclude that there were only ever two spots on the back of the sofa. And Seahorse's post above casts great doubt on the validity of these anyway

@ddl  This is an important point that many haven't understood in the past, causing some observers to leap to incomplete conclusions

Eddie's detection of cadaver scent - yes this indicates a death and that is suspicious because Maddie is missing

Keela detected dried blood, and she found plenty of spots

The mistake is to connect those two things. At many crime scenes the cadaver scent and blood scent will be inextricably linked. But at others the blood will be related to something else unrelated to the crime

Personally, I can't see how this particular arrangement of blood spots, and the weak evidence on the sofa itself, could have come from a violent death behind it

Was there blood found that seeped through the tiles? Genuine question

I posted a day or so ago that the liguitics of FSS and John Lowe were used to obsfucate the source of samples. Textusa post is an interesting read here is closing paragraphs......


The “laboratory examination report” referred to is John Lowe’s mail, on Sept 3 2007 (received by "Task Portugal" on Sept 4 2007), to Stuart Prior: “An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.”
Now compare this with what the Interim Report says about stain 3. We will help you. What in the mail is “swab 3a” in the interim report is “swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a)”. The rest is a copy word for word, including the misspelled “Madeline”.
Do note that John Lowe NEVER says that swab 3A is not related with the McCanns. He only says that about swab 3B. Subtle, isn't it? About 3A, like with stain 1, he doesn't provide an opinion.
 The DNA of stain 3 belongs to Maddie. John Lowe says so twice. The PJ once.
 To try to ignore this FACT is to be an idiot. And the choice of word is not ours. It’s Stuart Prior’s, as Mr Amaral describes in his book:
“On the very day that interrogation of the McCann couple starts, a second preliminary report reaches us. Contrary to the first report, it accords more importance to the DNA profile of the blood lifted from the floor of the apartment. In that sample, the DNA came from more than one donor, but the confirmed DNA components match the corresponding components of Madeleine's DNA profile.
As for the samples lifted from the boot of the car, there is no further mention of the 15 markers, as if they had never existed.
Suddenly, light was starting to be cast on the issue: either this LCN technique is not reliable or it's simply much easier to explain the presence of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment than in the boot of a car hired 24 days after her disappearance.
At our insistence, Stuart contacts the FSS and asks them if they think the Portuguese are idiots. We hear him saying: "With a lot less than that, we would have already arrested someone in England."”
Now do link all of the above with the fact that the only realistic scenario is for stains 1 to 15 in the living room of apartment 5A to have a single source origin

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html