Re: Madeleine McCann Books

Andrew Thu 19 May 2016, 3:58 pm

Who's that foreign blogger who some years back went into lots of detail about there theory, which was Madeleine died on the 2nd.....

It was an excellent piece of writing but can't for the life of me think who it was or where to find it now.

Would like to read it again.

AndyB Thu 19 May 2016, 4:01 pm

Heisenburg wrote:
Andrew wrote:Yeah, the stuff that iv'e read in the past re: Cadaver dogs, have all stated about 90 mins to 2 hours...

However this expert mentioned above said it's forensically impossible for Madeleine to have died on the 3rd due to the strength of the scent.

It's that I would like to see collaborated......

Is it impossible she died on the 3rd and so therefore she have had to have died before that date......

If you get what I mean.

Can't see why its impossible to have died on the 3rd,can a dog distinguish about the length of time,a human can of course but I guess what the expert is saying the longer a cadaver is in one place the stronger the mark in that place than say a cadaver being placed say for arguments sake in the garden for a matter of minutes.Or does it matter not, for a dog will alert no matter the length of time?

I think that perhaps there are two time periods that are relevant, although I have no idea how long each of them is. The first is the length of time after death that the corpse starts to produce detectable amounts of cadaverine and the second is the length of time that the corpse needs to be in contact with a surface before the cadaverine becomes detectable on that surface.

Heisenburg Thu 19 May 2016, 4:05 pm

What would be interesting to know is, lets say 120 minutes for cadaver to develop,does the alert grow stronger for the dog after this time or no matter what length of time after the initial time (120 minutes) the alert for a dog remains the same,ask the dogs Sandra I guess.

costello Thu 19 May 2016, 4:06 pm

Andrew wrote:Who's that foreign blogger who some years back went into lots of detail about there theory, which was Madeleine died on the 2nd.....

It was an excellent piece of writing but can't for the life of me think who it was or where to find it now.

Would like to read it again.

Need to check Andrew, but i'm sure it was Unterdenteppichgekert. Cristobell's blog?

**candyfloss** Thu 19 May 2016, 4:07 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
Andrew wrote:Regarding the dog expert - I would like to see some other dog experts collaborate that about the length of time.....

I understood that cad odour takes approx 90 minutes to develop after death but that once it has transfer is instaneous. We know cuddlecat was washed and presumably Kate's clothes, so are we saying that Kate may have held M, who in turn was holding CC for a significant time? Not impossible I suppose. I ask because the only weaker indication by Eddie that was mentioned by Mr Grime was the flowerbed and veranda. If that is the case then could M have been wearing the red tshirt as it was also alerted to?
We must pay no attention to the jammies as it is onky TM who say she was wearibg them when abducted. In truth she could have been wearing day clothes. But why no skirt, shorts or trousers alerted to?

I posted a study/research link once , I think on CMoMM, where it was found that some cadaver dogs could detect after just around 20 mins which was the shortest time quoted, the usual time is around 90 mins onwards.

It was on my old computer, so would have to google around, the website must still be there though I would think.

**candyfloss** Thu 19 May 2016, 4:09 pm

costello wrote:
Andrew wrote:Who's that foreign blogger who some years back went into lots of detail about there theory, which was Madeleine died on the 2nd.....

It was an excellent piece of writing but can't for the life of me think who it was or where to find it now.

Would like to read it again.

Need to check Andrew, but i'm sure it was Unterdenteppichgekert. Cristobell's blog?

Was that ''The Theory'?

Andrew Thu 19 May 2016, 4:11 pm

costello wrote:
Andrew wrote:Who's that foreign blogger who some years back went into lots of detail about there theory, which was Madeleine died on the 2nd.....

It was an excellent piece of writing but can't for the life of me think who it was or where to find it now.

Would like to read it again.

Need to check Andrew, but i'm sure it was Unterdenteppichgekert. Cristobell's blog?

Yes, that's the one. Cheers, costello.

Here it is:

http://unterdenteppichgekehrt.blogspot.co.uk/p/theory-english.html

Châtelaine Thu 19 May 2016, 4:13 pm

There have been many tests, not all of them equally, scientifically reliable IMO. Generally these tests indicate indeed at a min. of 90 mins. I do think it could be less. If I'm not mistaken, Grime thinks so too.

I've been advocating [but got nowhere], that one of the more reliable ones would be, that hospitals would collaborate with dog scientists. E.g. take the bed sheet from under a person, who has died. And do such at different intervals, like after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, etc. and test the positive results [if any] with trained dogs.

AndyB Thu 19 May 2016, 4:16 pm

I think if it takes 120 minutes after death for cadaverine to be produced by the corpse, then it will be 120 minutes before the dogs even have a chance of detecting its presence (because prior to this the cadaverine, which is what they detect, wont exist). I think the key point is how long does the cadaverine producing body have to be in contact with (e.g) the cupboard before a cadaver dog will detect that its been there, and does the detectability increase the longer the body is in contact?

Heisenburg Thu 19 May 2016, 4:18 pm

candyfloss wrote:
chirpyinsect wrote:
Andrew wrote:Regarding the dog expert - I would like to see some other dog experts collaborate that about the length of time.....

I understood that cad odour takes approx 90 minutes to develop after death but that once it has transfer is instaneous. We know cuddlecat was washed and presumably Kate's clothes, so are we saying that Kate may have held M, who in turn was holding CC for a significant time? Not impossible I suppose. I ask because the only weaker indication by Eddie that was mentioned by Mr Grime was the flowerbed and veranda. If that is the case then could M have been wearing the red tshirt as it was also alerted to?
We must pay no attention to the jammies as it is onky TM who say she was wearibg them when abducted. In truth she could have been wearing day clothes. But why no skirt, shorts or trousers alerted to?

I posted a study/research link once , I think on CMoMM, where it was found that some cadaver dogs could detect after just around 20 mins which was the shortest time quoted, the usual time is around 90 mins onwards.

It was on my old computer, so would have to google around, the website must still be there though I would think.

I think the 20 minutes is the time to contaminate an area after the initial 90/120 minutes it takes to develop scent.
Taken from the link I provided up thread.

The results indicate that the dog’s sensitivity for the detection of contaminated carpet squares was 98% for those squares contaminated for a maximum of 10 min and 86% for those squares contaminated for only 2 min

It would seem from that paper 98% accuracy after only 10 minutes,so a body after the initial 90/120 minutes only needs to be in situ for 10 minutes to get a reliable mark for a trained dog.

chirpyinsect Thu 19 May 2016, 4:30 pm

This is from MG's rogatory.

'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.

Châtelaine Thu 19 May 2016, 4:31 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:This is from MG's rogatory.

'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.

***
Exactly!

Andrew Thu 19 May 2016, 4:35 pm

So straight to the point.... Is this aforementioned expert talking fluff?

Châtelaine Thu 19 May 2016, 4:50 pm

Not necessarily. As I said before, there should be more tests, allowing to proof the incredible. Because that's what they are, these dogs [and mine].

Nonetheless, when I'm in a good mood and allow the McCs some slack, I think they might have come home late after a boozy night May 2, did not check on the children, but hit the sack and only the next day found out, that there'd been an accident behind the sofa. Autopsy would have shown, that their behaviour hadn't been in terms of responsible parenthood. So ... All IMO, of course. And there are other theories.

seahorse Thu 19 May 2016, 5:02 pm

An interesting study was done by L. Oesterhelweg using 2 deceased males and carpet squares.

"At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B)
was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively."

The bodies were placed on the carpet squares for 2 and 10 minutes respectively.

The results from the dogs after 2 mins exposure:

Madeleine McCann Books - Page 22 Dogs110

The results from the dogs after 10 mins exposure:

Madeleine McCann Books - Page 22 Dogs210

http://pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

Andrew Thu 19 May 2016, 5:34 pm

Interesting stuff indeed. More inclined to think that said expert is talking some fluff.

In regards to the 2nd as you mentioned, chateleine, is that it goes against everything that GA has said and he obviously knows a lot more than any of us. As much as 'the theory', which I linked upthread is very plausible, I still go with GA's thesis.

I think.

Châtelaine Thu 19 May 2016, 5:46 pm

Andrew, I've often had the idea, that Dr. Amaral wrote what he wrote to give them an "easy" way out of the problem of their own. An unfortunate accident and a panicked cover-up. And that they didn't take it, but attacked him. But, as always, I can be enormously mistaken. We just don't have all the facts. But sometime soon ...

costello Thu 19 May 2016, 6:00 pm

Andrew wrote:Interesting stuff indeed. More inclined to think that said expert is talking some fluff.

In regards to the 2nd as you mentioned, chateleine, is that it goes against everything that GA has said and he obviously knows a lot more than any of us. As much as 'the theory', which I linked upthread is very plausible, I still go with GA's thesis.

I think.

To be honest Andrew from what I have read on fb (not stating anything as fact) I do believe
GA has not disclosed 'all' the facts of the case. Personally I have always been of the opinion
Madeleine was long gone before the 3rd. Just my thoughts.

Heisenburg Thu 19 May 2016, 6:13 pm

Tuesday night is the important night imo.

ciawoman Thu 19 May 2016, 6:32 pm

In the book it suggests that Madeleine may have died around 6.30 because the cock up with David's Payne's time spent with Kate. It says he went back to the tennis court and told Gerry he had to come and help Kate.

Andrew Thu 19 May 2016, 6:35 pm

You see to me, if there was substantial evidence that Madeleine died before the 3rd and GA knew that (as well as the PJ etc), then we wouldn't be here now and the Mc's would of by now finished doing there porridge.

Agree that GA is not saying all but if he had proof that M died before said date then I genuinely think he would of stated that.

Just my thoughts.

Eta - in reply to costellos point.

Heisenburg Thu 19 May 2016, 6:43 pm

The McCanns aren't going to contradict Amaral by saying it happened earlier though if indeed it did.

bluebell Thu 19 May 2016, 6:44 pm

Heisenburg wrote: Tuesday night is the important night imo.

Tuesday was the day they man came to repair the damaged shutter and show K how to use the washing machine. Mon/Tues were busy ?
Just a coincidence of course Suspect

chirpyinsect Thu 19 May 2016, 6:46 pm

Andrew wrote:You see to me, if there was substantial evidence that Madeleine died before the 3rd and GA knew that (as well as the PJ etc), then we wouldn't be here now and the Mc's would of by now finished doing there porridge.

Agree that GA is not saying all but if he had proof that M died before said date then I genuinely think he would of stated that.

Just my thoughts.

Eta - in reply to costellos point.

I'm sure GA did originally think death on 3rd. Let's face it many of us also thought that for long enough. I appreciate some still do. But I have long thought that he has remained silent on any further conclusions because he had to stick within the PJ files. He isn't daft and would be well aware that saying anything libellous in his book would cause him trouble so he stayed within the paramaters of the archiving summary and the files as they were. I have no idea if he still thinks the same but now with the fetters removed, he will perhaps show us where his thinking has led him over the years. On the other hand, he may remain utterly circumspect, which would be the sensible thing.

costello Thu 19 May 2016, 6:56 pm

I'm thinking Sunday or Monday, although more inclined to think Sunday for sure. Just my thoughts.

Sponsored content

Madeleine McCann Books