Madeleine McCann: German prisoner identified as suspect - #22

[misty48]

I am not very certain what exactly you mean. HCW said CB killed MM. So if she was not killed in 5a, how did the cadaver scent found its way there? Unless it can be explained by the scent travelling from outside and lingering into the cupboard from someone else's unrelated death.

IMO it's vital to remember that cadaver dogs aren't person-specific &, in the case of UK-trained dogs, human specific either. The wardrobe wasn't dismantled to ascertain if there were any corroborating forensic samples behind or underneath the wooden carcass.
There are several possible explanations for the cadaver alerts, some innocent, some less so, without them having to be representative of a human death in 5A. Unfortunately for the possible victim, the accused & police investigators the dogs cannot be proven wrong during a live deployment as there wasn't & isn't any forensic test to corroborate the presence of remnant cadaver odour. I would hate to see CB or anyone else convicted of murder using only these alerts & circumstantial evidence. IMO Madeleine was not killed in 5A by CB then swiftly removed & I don't think we should be trying to prove he did simply to validate dog alerts.

 

[Victoria Chambers]

I personally, cannot accept the dog alerts being on items of clothing and on the car rented 25days after-the-fact, when we know FOR A FACT that GA manhandled his own dead dog in the month of May. And not just a feel for a heartbeat. He put it in the trash overnight, in the car the following morning - and from his book- he left for work at 8am and took a long detour trying to get a feel for the route any perp may have taken. Before parking his car at the bottom of a hill beneath the apartments. He felt fortunate because he could see the media out and about and it was them that he didn't want to be seen by. He then sees RM etc.- First off, WHY was GA sneaking around by the apartments? Especially with a dead dog in his vehicle!! It can never be overlooked, this negligence!

 

[tedtink]

IMO it's vital to remember that cadaver dogs aren't person-specific &, in the case of UK-trained dogs, human specific either. The wardrobe wasn't dismantled to ascertain if there were any corroborating forensic samples behind or underneath the wooden carcass.
There are several possible explanations for the cadaver alerts, some innocent, some less so, without them having to be representative of a human death in 5A. Unfortunately for the possible victim, the accused & police investigators the dogs cannot be proven wrong during a live deployment as there wasn't & isn't any forensic test to corroborate the presence of remnant cadaver odour. I would hate to see CB or anyone else convicted of murder using only these alerts & circumstantial evidence. IMO Madeleine was not killed in 5A by CB then swiftly removed & I don't think we should be trying to prove he did simply to validate dog alerts.

I don't think anyone is trying to "prove" anything.
It's JUST a theory.

 

[tedtink]

Re the dogs, The below is from Grime himself - Volume IX pages 2473 - 2477 August 2007

Martin Grime
UK NPIA Registered Subject Matter Expert
FBI Forensic Canine Program Specialist Adviser

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

IMO this means there is no certainty whatsoever about a death in 5a based on the canine detection.

Hopefully re-testing of hairs, finger prints and other samples might produce the corroborating evidence.
If the samples still exist.
Or perhaps HCW already has corroborating evidence.
JMO

 

[misty48]

I don't think anyone is trying to "prove" anything.
It's JUST a theory.

If it's just a theory the cadaver dog alerts in 5A & CB killing Madeleine in 5A should be treated as mutually exclusive. There is no scientific data confirming a cadaver dog will alert to remnant/cross contamination scent from a body <90mins post mortem, let alone such a body which has been swiftly removed from the crime scene.

 

[redplanet]

If there is an alert to an empty shelf, and if there are also some items which are known to have been on that shelf only for the short period x-y, but are now located elsewhere, one can ask the dog to also examine those items, and then depending on the result, make a deduction about when the intruder action at the shelf occurred. Oh if only there were such items in the current case!

 

[misty48]

If there is an alert to an empty shelf, and if there are also some items which are known to have been on that shelf only for the short period x-y, but are now located elsewhere, one can ask the dog to also examine those items, and then depending on the result, make a deduction about when the intruder action at the shelf occurred. Oh if only there were such items in the current case!

Did those items rest undisturbed, unworn & unwashed between 3rd May 07 & when the dogs examined them for the second time on 6th August 07?

 

[tedtink]

If it's just a theory the cadaver dog alerts in 5A & CB killing Madeleine in 5A should be treated as mutually exclusive. There is no scientific data confirming a cadaver dog will alert to remnant/cross contamination scent from a body <90mins post mortem, let alone such a body which has been swiftly removed from the crime scene.

Science is always evolving, isn't that wonderful, and scientists can't still fully explain why cadaver dogs are so effective at finding human remains and the residue scents.

 

[redplanet]

If it's just a theory the cadaver dog alerts in 5A & CB killing Madeleine in 5A should be treated as mutually exclusive. There is no scientific data confirming a cadaver dog will alert to remnant/cross contamination scent from a body <90mins post mortem, let alone such a body which has been swiftly removed from the crime scene.

What IYO caused the alert near that wardrobe in the apartment?
IMO to test whether dogs alert to samples taken at 4 or 5 minutes post-mortem is difficult - a forensic scientist armed with scent pads would need to eat and sleep 24/7 in each volunteers room, waiting patiently.

 

[redplanet]

Did those items rest undisturbed, unworn & unwashed between 3rd May 07 & when the dogs examined them for the second time on 6th August 07?

Those items were encountered by Eddie for the first time on 2 Aug (at villa) and then 3 Aug (at another location). Between 5 May and 1 Aug they were washed and people wore them.

 

[misty48]

What IYO caused the alert near that wardrobe in the apartment?
IMO to test whether dogs alert to samples taken at 4 or 5 minutes post-mortem is difficult - a forensic scientist armed with scent pads would need to eat and sleep 24/7 in each volunteers room, waiting patiently.

Without the wardrobe having been dismantled & the floor removed for excavation of the foundations, it's difficult to confirm or deny Eddie's alert to that area was correct. Was the alert to the general area or specific to the wardrobe? I find it difficult to reconcile alerts to the wardrobe area with only a few items which may or may not have been in the dirty laundry pile on the wardrobe shelf that night and a freshly-deceased cadaver being present in the room long enough to have caused any cross-contamination. I also doubt CB (or whoever) would have been in 5A long enough either.

 

[misty48]

Science is always evolving, isn't that wonderful, and scientists can't still fully explain why cadaver dogs are so effective at finding human remains and the residue scents.

What were the issues with the dogs in Laci Peterson & Dylan Redwine cases?

 

[redplanet]

I personally, cannot accept the dog alerts being on items of clothing and on the car rented 25days after-the-fact, when we know FOR A FACT that GA manhandled his own dead dog in the month of May. And not just a feel for a heartbeat. He put it in the trash overnight, in the car the following morning - and from his book- he left for work at 8am and took a long detour trying to get a feel for the route any perp may have taken. Before parking his car at the bottom of a hill beneath the apartments. He felt fortunate because he could see the media out and about and it was them that he didn't want to be seen by. He then sees RM etc.- First off, WHY was GA sneaking around by the apartments? Especially with a dead dog in his vehicle!! It can never be overlooked, this negligence!

You have alleged that GA was sneaking around the apartments "with a dead dog in his vehicle"
Are you sure that you actually read your source correctly?

 

[redplanet]

What were the issues with the dogs in Laci Peterson & Dylan Redwine cases?

In the LP case what is your point about the dogs: did you think Twist made some kind or error, if so what?

 

[Dlk79]

If it's just a theory the cadaver dog alerts in 5A & CB killing Madeleine in 5A should be treated as mutually exclusive. There is no scientific data confirming a cadaver dog will alert to remnant/cross contamination scent from a body <90mins post mortem, let alone such a body which has been swiftly removed from the crime scene.

Is there any evidence to say a cadaver dog definitely CANNOT detect a cadaver scent in less time than 90 minutes post-mortem though? Has that been tested to any degree? Because we know that the actual cadaver scent starts to develop after only a few minutes, and that other animals CAN detect it at that point. So the question is whether a good dog also could.

I do treat the theories seperately. When I first suggested a death in the apartment at the hands of CB, I wasn't even considering the dog alerts as part of the reasoning. Personally, all I am wondering is if that scenario COULD also explain the alerts. I have no strong confidence that it could, but at the same time, can it be ruled out altogether based on what we know? Equally though, yes, the alerts may be something entirely unrelated to MM's death altogether.

 

[misty48]

In the LP case what is your point about the dogs: did you think Twist made some kind or error, if so what?

One tracker dog (Twist) picked up LP scent at the marina but another one didn't. A cadaver dog also failed to alert to the tarp LP was later found to have been wrapped in.
How are investigators supposed to determine which dog has alerted correctly in the event of conflicting dog evidence and a lack of material or other testimonial evidence?

 

[misty48]

Is there any evidence to say a cadaver dog definitely CANNOT detect a cadaver scent in less time than 90 minutes post-mortem though? Has that been tested to any degree? Because we know that the actual cadaver scent starts to develop after only a few minutes, and that other animals CAN detect it at that point. So the question is whether a good dog also could.

I do treat the theories seperately. When I first suggested a death in the apartment at the hands of CB, I wasn't even considering the dog alerts as part of the reasoning. Personally, all I am wondering is if that scenario COULD also explain the alerts. I have no strong confidence that it could, but at the same time, can it be ruled out altogether based on what we know? Equally, yes, the alerts may be something entirely unrelated to MM's death altogether.

When the body >90mins post mortem remains in situ - yes, a well-trained cadaver dog could probably detect it at close quarters.
If the same body was removed from scene - the science hasn't proven there would be sufficient residual VOC's to trigger an indisputable alert.

There is always the possibility Madeleine didn't leave the apartment alive, as you said.

 

[redplanet]

Is there any evidence to say a cadaver dog definitely CANNOT detect a cadaver scent in less time than 90 minutes post-mortem though? Has that been tested to any degree? Because we know that the actual cadaver scent starts to develop after only a few minutes, and that other animals CAN detect it at that point. So the question is whether a good dog also could.

I do treat the theories seperately. When I first suggested a death in the apartment at the hands of CB, I wasn't even considering the dog alerts as part of the reasoning. Personally, all I am wondering is if that scenario COULD also explain the alerts. I have no strong confidence that it could, but at the same time, can it be ruled out altogether based on what we know? Equally, yes, the alerts may be something entirely unrelated to MM's death altogether.

Yes it is good to treat components of a theory seperately. IMO the quantity of samples ever obtained at <90 mins PM and tested by dog, is too few to generate statistically significant results. Can a cadaver dog alert to a sample of scent obtained at 5 or 10 minutes PM? IMO probably yes, but I haven't found any data to prove it either way.

 

[redplanet]

One tracker dog (Twist) picked up LP scent at the marina but another one didn't. A cadaver dog also failed to alert to the tarp LP was later found to have been wrapped in.
How are investigators supposed to determine which dog has alerted correctly in the event of conflicting dog evidence and a lack of material or other testimonial evidence?

I need to look at it more, I thought Twist = cadaver dog, and Trimble = other type of dog, but I am probably wrong.

 

[Ausgrlz]

I've always had a weird thought on tractor man, can't find any details about his death, but CB was a mechanic, could of done something to the tractor?? Very far fetched though

I admit to having wondered the same. And remember the car accident which disabled his father, far fetched but still....

I am not sure why there is so much discussion around a ‘accidental’ death when it has been conclusively stated to be a murder investigation?

HCW has said he knows how MM died and elements were similar to TB and MP murders. It doesn’t matter in this investigation whether CB carried these out or not, it is the information around the manner of the murder that is important which I was trying to highlight. IMO this would automatically rule out events occurring in 5a due to the amount of contamination to the scene which would have physical evidence remaining rather than a few alerts from specialised dogs.