Capabilities of the Dogs

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:But we don't know that there was a body, do we?

Oh I think we do. No previous death in 5a. Eddie ( and only Eddie) alerts in parent's room, veranda and flower bed, so something was dead long enough to be contaminated by cadaver scent. I agree it may not be the body itself

Quite

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:But we don't know that there was a body, do we?

Oh I think we do. No previous death in 5a. Eddie ( and only Eddie) alerts in parent's room, veranda and flower bed, so something was dead long enough to be contaminated by cadaver scent. I agree it may not be the body itself

If it wasn't a body that deposited the cadeverine directly, what is the means by which the cadaverine left the body and was deposited in those places only?

From the PJ Files:

PJ: With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred

GRIME: There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral.

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

Satsuma wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:But we don't know that there was a body, do we?

Oh I think we do. No previous death in 5a. Eddie ( and only Eddie) alerts in parent's room, veranda and flower bed, so something was dead long enough to be contaminated by cadaver scent. I agree it may not be the body itself

Quite

Please quote entire post Sat. You will see I was saying that it may not have been the body itself that caused all the alerts as 2 of those were weaker.( The outside ones) But just in case you didn't understand my point, I am refuting your claim that we don't know there was a body. We do as there is only one person missing, and Eddie alerted when Keela did not.
If there was a body, where would it be for 3 weeks if not in cold storage?
No doubt you will quote me selectively again when I say this but, supposing you are right and her body wasn't moved in the car, why do you think the Macs came up with all those reasons for fluids, blood, smell etc. It's a bit of brain leak, just like the claim that Kate took Cuddlecat to work wearing her Ganga pants and white Tshirt, whilst attending to 6 dead bodies. Cheers Phil. If the dogs are unreliable, why the need to explain their findings? Oh and I suppose CC was wearing the red aeroplane Tshirt.

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:But we don't know that there was a body, do we?

Oh I think we do. No previous death in 5a. Eddie ( and only Eddie) alerts in parent's room, veranda and flower bed, so something was dead long enough to be contaminated by cadaver scent. I agree it may not be the body itself

If it wasn't a body that deposited the cadeverine directly, what is the means by which the cadaverine left the body and was deposited in those places only?

That's the problem when a post only gets quoted selectively. Whatever the body was eventually placed in, be it shower curtain, blanket or blue bag it would become contaminated. Those materials would have a weaker trace than the body I expect, hence the weaker alerts.
Kate's clothes were contaminated by coming into contact with the body after the onset of cadaverine. I wonder why Gerry got rid of his clothes( if he did) but didn't think to dump Kate's. Hmmmm

Satsuma wrote:From the PJ Files:

PJ: With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred

GRIME: There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral.

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

You're not answering the question I asked. Regardless of the source of the cadaverine how did it end up in the places where it was ONLY. Why the concentration in those places if we are to disregard the most obvious explanation; those are the places where there was a body?

To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

Satsuma wrote:To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

I'm pretty sure it was in the flower bed unless your imagination can convince me otherwise. And if it was clothing that transferred the cadaverine, why were there no alerts elsewhere? Clothes tend not to stay in the wardrobe and are worn, thrown on the floor etc, giving plenty of opportunity for the spread of the cadaverine. Why do we have to reject the most obvious explanation; that the cadaverine was deposited by a body directly?

Satsuma wrote:To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

But are clothes kept on verandas and flowerbeds?

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

But are clothes kept on verandas and flowerbeds?

Oh indeed, when they have been washed and are drip drying over the railings, not only onto the balcony but onto the flower bed below

Satsuma wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

But are clothes kept on verandas and flowerbeds?

Oh indeed, when they have been washed and are drip drying over the railings, not only onto the balcony but onto the flower bed below

You're getting desperate now - cadaverine leached from drip drying clothes? Please. If it was so easy for cadaverine to be transferred, it would have been everywhere and cadaver dogs would have no use. But they do and have successfully highlighted where a corpse has been many many times. Why do we have to reject the obvious explanation for Eddies's alerts, alerts that you agree are genuine, and instead invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for the presence of the cadaverine? Why can't you accept what is obvious to most of us - that the cadaverine detected by Eddie was deposited directly by a body and the reason that he alerted where he did is because that's where the body lay?

So you think there was a body in the flower bed? What a strange place to leave a body

Satsuma wrote:So you think there was a body in the flower bed? What a strange place to leave a body

Not necessarily if you heard someone coming your way and you had to put the body down briefly.

Or leave it in a bag outside until the coast was clear.

Or something similar to that...

AndyB wrote:

Satsuma wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Satsuma wrote:To all of you - assuming Eddie's alert was reliable  (and I assume it was), there was a body somewhere in the sequence. Someone, somewhere. But given Grime's comment about transferral of scent (the most obvious of which would be via clothing, and clothes are kept in wardrobes in bedrooms)  nobody can possibly know where the body was

But are clothes kept on verandas and flowerbeds?

Oh indeed, when they have been washed and are drip drying over the railings, not only onto the balcony but onto the flower bed below

You're getting desperate now - cadaverine leached from drip drying clothes? Please. If it was so easy for cadaverine to be transferred, it would have been everywhere and cadaver dogs would have no use. But they do and have successfully highlighted where a corpse has been many many times. Why do we have to reject the obvious explanation for Eddies's alerts, alerts that you agree are genuine, and instead invent increasingly ridiculous explanations for the presence of the cadaverine? Why can't you accept what is obvious to most of us - that the cadaverine detected by Eddie was deposited directly by a body and the reason that he alerted where he did is because that's where the body lay?

Why did the dog not alert to the washing machine door? Or near the sink if the clothing was hand washed? Or to whatever the clothes were carried in from machine to veranda?
Still waiting for the answer to where the body may have been stored. I would think 2 days and the whole neighbourhood would smell it if not in a fridge.

Satsuma wrote:So you think there was a body in the flower bed? What a strange place to leave a body

Given that the police asked M and S for a set of pjs like M's to check for matching fibres from the veranda wall and they also took clippings from a bush tells me they might have thought she climbed on the wall and fell down below into the flowerbed but I think that was dismissed.

chirpyinsect wrote:Still waiting for the answer to where the body may have been stored

You will be waiting for that answer for a long time because until you prove there was a body in and around the apartment on May 3rd, I won't be answering it

Andrew wrote:

Satsuma wrote:So you think there was a body in the flower bed? What a strange place to leave a body

Not necessarily if you heard someone coming your way and you had to put the body down briefly.

Or leave it in a bag outside until the coast was clear.

Or something similar to that...

Right, so we now have somebody wandering around with a body in their arms, what a lovely scenario
OR...   if the body was in a bag, how did the cadaverine smell penetrate the bag and leave scent on the flower bed that was detectable 3 months later?

Satsuma wrote:

Andrew wrote:

Satsuma wrote:So you think there was a body in the flower bed? What a strange place to leave a body

Not necessarily if you heard someone coming your way and you had to put the body down briefly.

Or leave it in a bag outside until the coast was clear.

Or something similar to that...

Right, so we now have somebody wandering around with a body in their arms, what a lovely scenario
OR...   if the body was in a bag, how did the cadaverine smell penetrate the bag and leave scent on the flower bed that was detectable 3 months later?

The same way that it was leached out of the body into washing water that dripped onto the flower bed? You can sneer as much as you like but your theories are just as ridiculous, if not more so. Why can you not accept the most obvious explanation for the alerts that you accept are genuine: That a body was where Eddie alerted?

Washing water would contain molecules of cadaverine. Mrs Insect - sinks get washed with bleach. As for the basket/whatever used to transfer the washing, no idea. Three months passed before the dogs moved in. On the other hand, putting a bag down would transfer nothing if you are talking about a blue tennis one - it would have been lined. It isn't obvious that a body was in the apartment however much you may say it. You can't even agree how this body died in the first place

Satsuma wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:Still waiting for the answer to where the body may have been stored

You will be waiting for that answer for a long time because until you prove there was a body in and around the apartment on May 3rd, I won't be answering it

Where did I say 3 May? And don't you think the Macs would be eating porridge if anyone could prove it? What we are all supposed to be doing is trying to eliminate the unlikely or improbable. We are not the police, nor the judge or jury. We have all got our own ideas of what may have happened but it doesn't help to be antagonistic. Perhaps your opinions would carry more weight if people were able to feel you are on the same side. And let's just suppose we have a hypothetical situation with a dead body that you need to get rid of. You are in a strange country, you know nobody ( allegedly) the ground is hard, you have no vehicular access. Where would you try to hide a body whilst thinking if a final resting place?
Of course if I had been them I would have hired a car when she first died, before I concocted a fake abduction and whooshed the body many miles from PDL. Any dna found could be explained away by her supposed live person being in the car before 3 May.
Can't think of everything I suppose.

With thanks to Chateleine I found this:

"Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video."


http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/exclusive-footage-of-eddie-cadaver-dog.html

Truly amazing those dogs. There can be no doubt about their abilities.

Indeed Seahorse, that cadaver smell could have come from anywhere, but it did exist. Like all of you, I trust the dogs. Time for lunch

Satsuma wrote:Washing water would contain molecules of cadaverine. Mrs Insect - sinks get washed with bleach. As for the basket/whatever used to transfer the washing, no idea. Three months passed before the dogs moved in. On the other hand, putting a bag down would transfer nothing if you are talking about a blue tennis one - it would have been lined. It isn't obvious that a body was in the apartment however much you may say it. You can't even agree how this body died in the first place

There was a body in the parent's room regardless of who it was and when it was. Maybe one of the construction workers fell under the veranda when the building was put up. His mates didn't notice as he was always taking days off. He wasn't married and had no kids so nobody noticed he was missing. The smell of his decomposing body drifted into the bedroom then with subsequent floor mopping the dirty water seeped under the tiles then dripped onto the flowerbed.
Must send that one to Pammy.

Satsuma wrote:Washing water would contain molecules of cadaverine. Mrs Insect - sinks get washed with bleach. As for the basket/whatever used to transfer the washing, no idea. Three months passed before the dogs moved in. On the other hand, putting a bag down would transfer nothing if you are talking about a blue tennis one - it would have been lined. It isn't obvious that a body was in the apartment however much you may say it. You can't even agree how this body died in the first place

So we all have to agree on the method of death before we can posit that a body was the source of the cadaverine do we?

So, molecules of cadaverine that are present in washing water hang around in flower beds waiting to be discovered by Eddie, whereas molecules of cadaverine in washing machines, washing baskets, sinks, work surfaces, tables and all the other places where washing is placed all magically disappear? Your desperation for there not to have been a body is becoming obvious and embarrassing. Again I ask; why do you find it so difficult to accept the most obvious explanation for Eddie's alerts, that there was a body where he alerted?

Just from my simplistic view - I wonder why Sat is getting so much attention  ?

Regards Sat - we are all entitled to our opinions, theories and interpretations as I am sure you will agree.
 
On the other hand an individual (referring to you here Sat) who has the time and inclination to disagree or query so many points and seems to believe they alone are correct ..... well......the word dogmatic springs to mind   (don't you just love the dogs!!)              

Discussion is wonderful, different people putting different points forward for consideration, the benefits of a forum indeed.  Who is trying to convince whom here, that's what I'd like to know.      
   
No offence intended of course and I am sure it won't be taken, but what exactly are you trying to achieve ?  Unanimous agreement to your point of view, or supplying positive, factual points - or is it just another personal interpretation of the information we have    ?

Oh, and by the way I AM GERRY