Friday, 5 June 2015

Cadaver compound

... and anyone saying differently is coming to the most nonsensical, convoluted conclusion ever heard.

1. Introduction

One of the most effective ways to disrupt a topic is by distorting it by using useless truth.

When one tries to find out if a vehicle is either a bus or van the debate ending up in a heated discussion about what kind of stone may or not have been caught in the tread of one of its tires that should or not be a specific brand.

Genuinely discussing the type of stone adds nothing to a discussion about vehicle types. All said about what the stones may be is true, but is an useless truth to the purported debate.

These truths (and they are truths) seek only to disrupt.

One allowing one to be engaged in such a debate is to find oneself discovering whether the hypothetical stone is sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous and nothing about finding out what the vehicle is.

As every subject has thousands of truths around it the disruption is continuously fed very easily. There will always be hairs to be split.

To refuse to be engaged in such a useless debate immediately provokes a disciplinary accusation of wanting to duck the question. Disciplinary because in the reprimand there’s always that humiliating “get back here, I haven’t stopped so if you leave you’re a coward.”

On our last post “Cadaverine” we clearly identified the “vehicle” we wanted to identify by making the following question: did the fact that Eddie the ERVD dog not mark anything on Murat’s property rule it out as a possible safe house to where the body was taken after apartment 5A?“

We said Murat’s property couldn’t be ruled out because the following 4 points:

#1 - If one removes a contaminated object from premises then one removes the contamination that object has with it. Jacques de La Palice wouldn’t have said it better. We used the shelf of closet in apartment 5A to demonstrate. Any possible contaminated object could also have been removed from Murat’s property.

#2 - There were three locations marked by the ERVD dog in apartment 5A (living-room, bedroom and backyard) but we’re certain there was a fourth location, location X, where we say body was cleaned and redressed. The fact that this location was not marked by the dog means that there was at least one place in that apartment where the body had been and where no vestiges of its presence had been left. If that could happen in apartment 5A then the same circumstances could have been replicated in Murat’s property;

#3 - The back gate of apartment 5A was unmarked by the dog but by the route the body followed, indicated by the 3 marked locations, Gerry when exiting to meet Jez and returning thereafter and when carrying body out of property, opened and closed the gate 6 times. This means that the contamination is not as straightforward as supposed;

#4 - There was the very strong likelihood of a vehicle having been used that night to take the body from there to a second safe-house (which we think to have been the water treatment station). We think it was there the body was kept when inside Murat’s property. When it left it would have taken all vestiges with it.

None of these 4 points was contradicted in any way.

We consider to have proved, without any objections, the point of our post: the absence of Eddie marking does not rule out the possibility of the body having been in Murat’s property on the night of the 3rd.

Those opposing us argued around two issues: one was the possibility the water treatment station having been or not used as second safe house after Murat’s property and the other was related to the substance that the dog marked.

Denying that the water treatment station was the second safe house is not denying the existence of a second safe house. We explained in the post why we thought the way we thought.

The debate about what indeed the dog had marked (we said it was cadaverine) was the opposition paid most attention to and what basically this post is about.

2. Substance v odour

The opposition’s arguments can be divided into:

- As we stated there was no Volatile Contamination in the first hours and the opposition using as evidence an experiment, which we shall call the carpet square experiment, whereby ERVD dogs marked a contamination “without any direct contact” between corpse and contaminated surface. This, according to them, proved there was indeed a volatile or airborne contamination which meant that we had intentionally misinformed.

- What Eddie marked was not cadaverine as we said but a complex compound of various elements, which the opposition called cadaver odour and asserted all we said was again pure misinformation and the whole post should be ignored;

We cannot see how either invalidates our post in any way.

And IF there was an immediate volatile contamination then what Eddie marked was what he marked and he didn’t mark location X (a place inside apartment 5A which we don't have any idea where it really was only that there was one).

About the substance in question, whatever it was, the fact is there was one (we don't know where) unmarked location X meaning the body had been there but no vestiges of the substance were to be found.

Whatever precautions were taken at that location, unwittingly about anything related to the ERVD dog as we said, the same ones could also have been taken at Murat’s.

The doctors present in the group would have dissected cadavers in training. Instinct would have made them take precautions, not thinking about dogs, just practicalities

We will talk about the substance later. For now, we would like to concentrate on the odour of it.

From the expression “without any direct contact” used in carpet square experiment some have quickly come to the conclusion that it was a volatile contamination or airborne molecules impregnating the surface. From there for it not to be even a substance but a gas was just a quick jump away.

Tigger, who “can't for the life of me understand why Textusa is taken seriously. Imo [in my opinion] there's little to choose between the misinformation of TM [Team McCann] and Textusa” had this to say:

“This last effort [our post “Cadaverine”]  is a bunch of misinformation. Cadaverine is not an oily substance it's a gas, contact is not necessary for dogs to smel it. Think of it as a perfume or a room spray. Think of a spray from a skunk will not have to touch the items that will absorb the scent such as textiles.”

Note to self: next time in a perfume store do remember to ask only for one of those bottles without any liquid, they must be cheaper than the ones that are filled with the stuff.

To be clear, if it involves smell it involves airborne molecules. Only airborne molecules make the nerve endings of a nose tingle.

But one thing is the scent or odour, another the source of that same scent.

Using the perfume as an example, what we smell is the scent, airborne molecules released by the volatile substance, and the liquid is the source.

Of course gas also smells. It is made up of airborne molecules. But once released into the air, these molecules disperse and their density in the air is so low that it no longer activates the nerve endings of the nose.

Could airborne molecules remain in place, literally floating in the air during long periods of time?

Martin Grime says they can when he speaks of the ERVD dog marking near the closet in the parents' bedroom: “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this, is that, in a hot climate, with the apartment being closed, the odour will accumulate in a certain area. Not being here a odour source, be it a physical object that is emitting the odour [an “or something else” is missing in this sentence] any residual odour will accumulate in a certain place, due to the placement of the air to give me an indication by barking. But the source may not be in that corner, could well be in another place in that room, but the air is pushing it into that corner. But there is and I would say that it is a positive result for the things he's trying to find, which will be included in an independent report.”

In a closed apartment the air doesn't circulate, that is true. Only apartment 5A was not closed. After Maddie disappeared the apartment had the presence of many people namely the forensics. They certainly were present in that room.

Also, the apartment was rented afterwards. Which means people did use that room and opened and closed the doors of that apartment, room and even closet many times.

The scent survived all the cleaning of the apartment between guests and during their stay.

Apartment 5A does not constitute an apartment being closed. The air circulated enough to dissipate any floating molecules that may have been there, if they were there without an emitting source.

As these molecules were there, then it means there was an emitting source.

ERVD dogs react to smell but what that reaction says is that in the area that is being marked there is a source. Somewhere near is the substance, more or less volatile, that is releasing, or emitting the airborne molecules.

The substance, which we up to now have called cadaverine, is not a gas. To say it is, is to misinform. The picture above, which we published in the post, should have been a clue.

According to wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition “Cadaverine is a syrupy, colourless fuming ptomaine C5H14N2, formed by the carboxylation of lysine by bacteria in decaying animal flesh.”

So it is a liquid, but an oily or syrupy liquid. As the synthetically produced version, as illustrated, shows.

3. The substance

We agree with the opposition when it says that what the dog responds to is not cadaverine. We have already said in a comment on our last post that were keeping things to basics, to be intentionally simplistic. Why we did it, we will explain later.

Martin Grimes says “The odour of cadaver is scientifically explained through volatile organic compounds that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as receptors.”

The substance that is the source of the odour or scent of cadaver, that makes ERVD dogs react is a complex mix of different molecules.

It's so complex that no one has been able to identify with precision what exactly it is made of. This a fact that is very important to keep present.

We would say that its main components are cadaverine and putrescine.

Putrescine and cadaverine are very similar as both are diamines. Cadaverine comes from removing the carbolic acid group from the amino acid lysine, whereas putrescine is derived from arginine, which is a different amino acid.

Both putrescine and cadaverine contribute in small parts to the smell of urine and semen.

Both substances are produced by living human beings so we imagine that in this compound there must be other substances resulting from the decomposition of the highly complex machine that the human body is that will enable the dog to differentiate a deceased human source from a live one.

Continues Grime “Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot be replicated in laboratory processes.”

In our post “Cadaverine” we saw that cadaverine can be produced artificially. Putrescine can also be produced that way:

As both cadaverine and putrescine can be artificially made but the compound cannot be replicated this means that the substance that causes the ERVD dog's reaction is much more complex than one made up with just these two substances.

Martin Grime describes how his dogs were trained. Eddie, the EVRD/cadaver dog was trained “using whole or disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognise all parts of human cadaver. He is not trained for live human odours.”

“EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is closest to humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Occasionally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.”

“The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still-born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scene of a decomposing body not foodstuff.”

Live human odours means that no diapers justify Eddie's markings.

This ensures that the dog disregards bacon sandwich and kebab. He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the USA in association with the FBI.

About pseudo-scents he says “When tested on my dogs, they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.”

He does also say “the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to ‘train’ the dog to distinguish between the two.”

Note that he precedes the above with the following words “The result of a scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that...” and follows it with these “That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.” 

The words of someone who is qualifying what he's saying as he feels he feels he has to say as he hasn't, yet, the 100% assurance that what he truly believes as an experienced dog-trainer is water-tight.

The pigs odour is closest to humans because the constitution of their bodies is almost as complex as ours. We go back to the complexity of the cadaver compound. A complexity such that it is keeping science puzzled to this day but the dog's nose knows what it is.

Saying that the dog's nose confuses this smell with another because the composition of the cadaver compound is still scientifically unknown (it is known that its 2 major components are cadaverine and putrescine) is to say that the apple that hit Newton on the head only fell to the ground because it was confused in which direction to fall because up until that moment science had not yet discovered gravity.

The fact that science hasn't kept up to date with a phenomenon doesn't disprove its existence in any way. Nature is much more advanced than science. The decomposition of lysine into cadaverine is nature's doing as also is that wonderful piece of machinery, the dog's nose.

Unless a decomposing pig was related to ALL locations and items related to the McCanns, the odour detected by Eddie can only have been from a deceased human source. These locations/items being as far as we know the parents' bedroom closet, the living room behind couch, the flowerbed in backyard, pieces of clothing (2) of Kate, a piece of clothing of Maddie, the cuddly cat, the Scenic and the key FOB.

No amount of rotting sea-bass and diapers justify Eddie's markings on ALL the listed items/locations.

There are progressive changes in a cadaver over periods of time, so to be effective, dogs are trained using cadavers in various stages of decomposition.

Once the body has been removed without contaminating anything else any airborne molecules or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) will eventually dissipate.

The fact that there are molecules flying about in a normally ventilated area that can be detected by the dog's nose means there's a source releasing them. The source is where the substance has contaminated surface. It will continuously release airborne molecules.

Martin Grime says attempts to bleach surfaces do not confuse the dogs.

We have seen the scent named, cadaver odour or cadaver scent, but have yet to see the substance named. We shall call it the most obvious and truthful: cadaver compound.

4. Simplifying

When determining if a vehicle is a bus or not does one need to go into the detail of the shade of its colour? No, one doesn’t.

The same way we wouldn’t say whether the vehicle was Ferrari red, ruby red, cherry red or candy red but say that it just red, we reduced the cadaver compound to just one of its elements, cadaverine.

We did this to avoid useless discussion.

To demonstrate let’s imagine that the reader is discussing what is the simplest cocktail to make. Vodka orange (vodka, orange juice and ice), cuba libre (rum, coca-cola and ice) and gin and tonic (gin, tonic water and ice) come to mind.

One would look and see what were the constraints in both acquiring each of their main ingredients and in putting them inside a glass and quickly come to a conclusion.  

A simple, quick and straightforward process.

But now let’s look at one of those drinks in detail, gin and tonic.

A very simple drink to make. A portion of tonic water to a portion of gin, some ice and that’s that. Three elements, gin, tonic water and water in the form of ice. All very simple, apparently.

But let’s look at what Wikipedia says is a gin and tonic:

“A gin and tonic is a highball cocktail made with gin and tonic water poured over ice. It is usually garnished with a slice or wedge of lime. The amount of gin varies according to taste. Suggested ratios of gin to tonic are 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 2:3.

In some countries, gin and tonic is marketed pre-mixed in single-serving cans. In the United States, most bars "use soda out of a gun that in no way, shape or form resembles quinine water", according to bartender Dale DeGroff. To get a real gin and tonic, DeGroff recommends specifying bottled tonic. Alternatively, one can add tonic syrup to soda water.”

We now no longer have only 3 elements but now a fourth, lime. And it can be a wedge or a slice.

Note that tonic water can be replaced by tonic syrup and soda water if one wishes to maintain integrity or just soda out of a gun if one doesn’t care.

The portions vary for 1:1 to 1:3 with all in between.

Do these details matter? Only if one wants to split hairs.

And one can split hairs indeed. Is the drink still a gin and tonic if one doesn't put ice? Is it really a gin and tonic if uses a gun?

To detail more than needed is to unnecessarily complicate any discussion. Note that one thing remains constant even in the hair-splitting: it's main component, gin, is not a variable but a constant in the equation.

The cadaver compound is composed mainly of cadaverine and putrescine as we have seen. Both are very similar. By dealing with one, one deals with the other to what matters in the debate which was, if one is not detected in 5A then it can also not be in Murat’s property.

But the simplification of the compound didn’t make our life easier, on the contrary. By taking out of the compound all other elements we took away all their constraints.

We dealt only with the constraints and specifics of cadaverine leaving out all these related to the other elements.

Note ALL the constraints and specifics of cadaverine are present in the constraints and specifics of the compound.

By simplifying the cadaver compound to one of its most important elements, cadaverine, we made things easier to understand.

Is the constitution of the compound important to determine if whatever was not detected in apartment 5A wouldn’t be in Murat’s?

Only in what pertains to the contamination of the substance and that’s why we detailed cadaverine. It was important for us to have the reader understand its syrupy characteristics. It's a significant constraint in having it contaminating anything.

By contesting our simplification, in their thirst for our error, what the opposition ended up doing was to highlight how effective and reliable Eddie was in apartment 5A.

And if he was effective and reliable in apartment 5A he was too when marking the Scenic and every single item/location he marked.

For that alone we think gratitude is owed to Insane.

5. The carpet square experiment

The opposition attacked us fiercely claiming that we were talking nonsense because when we said that Maddie, in our opinion, wasn’t in 5A long enough for VOC to develop to a great extent.

No, they said with vehemence, there IS immediate airborne contamination. The carpet-square experiment proves it without a shadow of a doubt!

Note, we didn’t (and don’t) deny volatile or airborne contamination during the later stages of decomposition. What we said, and are repeating today, is that in the first hours not enough cadaver compound (now we can refer it like that) was developed to cause an airborne contamination.

Let’s transcribe here what this experiment was:

“Cadaver dogs—A study on detection of contaminated carpet squares



Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.

Material and methods

Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI < 3 h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).


The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100), specificity (91–100), and having a positive predictive value (90–100), negative predictive value (90–100) as well as accuracy (92–100).


Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.

Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.

Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.”

6. Airborne contamination, is it or is it not?

This is what Insane had to say about the carpet square experiment related to our post.

“In this study, carpet tiles were used as the medium to 'capture' the odours produced by a recently deceased cadaver. The tiles were never in direct contact with the cadaver, so the transmission of cadaver odour was airborne.

This is a paper of central and vital importance in this case. The fact that you clearly haven't read it speaks volumes about your lack of research.”

Let’s see how the carpet square experiment was carried out.

It is quite detailed in the book “What the Dog Knows: Scent, Science, and the Amazing Ways Dogs Perceive the World” by Cat Warren. The description of the experiment is here.

It's summed up in the blog “Dog Law Reporter”:

“A German research team was asked by the Hamburg Police Department how long a dead body would have to have contact with a mattress or a carpet for a cadaver dog to detect that a body had been on the item. This question arose from a real case involving a married couple that went sailing in their yacht. The husband returned alone and reported his wife missing, but the police soon regarded him as a suspect. They brought a cadaver dog onto the yacht, which alerted in the cabin. Although this would not have been enough for a conviction, the researchers argued that it justified further investigation. They designed an experiment to answer the question of the Hamburg police. Two men who had died only two hours before were wrapped in cotton blankets. Carpet squares were placed under their backs, touching the blankets but not the bodies. The squares were left under the men for either two minutes or ten minutes, then removed and placed in sealed containers. Carpet squares were also placed under living men, also without direct contact. The carpet squares were then used in a test of the skills of three cadaver dogs of the Hamburg Police Department, two Malinois and a herding dog. One of the Malinois had five years of experience, while the other two had about a year and a half. They were tested the day of the exposure, but up to 35 days later for the two-minute exposed squares and 65 days for the ten-minute exposed squares. The dogs sometimes failed to identify the two-minute squares, but two of the dogs were perfect on the ten-minute squares. Collectively the dogs alerted accurately 86% of the time on the two-minute squares and 98% of the time on the ten-minute exposed squares (with only one dog have any incorrect alerts). The message to the criminals apparently is, if you’re going to move a body, do it quickly or the dog will find you out.”

The carpet squares experiment carried out in 2008 by Oesterhelweg and colleagues was to determine how long material needed to be exposed to a cadaver, in order for ERVD dogs to detect the odour and with what degree of accuracy.

The bodies of 2 men (men aged 60 and 63 who had collapsed on the streets in Hamburg) who had donated their bodies for medical research purposes, were used.

The cadavers were used between 2 and 3 hours after death. They were wrapped in cotton blankets in an outside courtyard of a hospital.

Carpet squares were placed under the back of the cadaver, so they touched the blanket and not the body. The squares were left for time intervals of 2 minutes and 10 minutes. They were then removed and placed in sealed bags. A control group of samples were used on living men, where there was also no direct contact with the body.

3 dogs were used, with varying experience.

Up to 35 days later, the 2 minute exposed squares were used. Dogs were 86% correct.

Up to 65 days later, the 10 minute squares were used. Dogs were 98% correct. 2 of the dogs were completely accurate on these squares. Accurate in marking the contaminated squares and ignoring the uncontaminated ones.

Unfortunately for Insane, when one says “without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse” (carpet square experiment) one is NOT saying the “transmission of cadaver odour was airborne” (his words). It means only that there was no direct contact between contaminated surface and the body who contaminated it.

The experiment was about secondary contamination and NOT about an airborne one.

Martin Grime says this about odour transferring from a cadaver to clothing which was then in contact with other clothing.

“There is always the possibility of contamination of odours by transfer” and “Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios” and “The dog has been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to carpet or upholstery in motor vehicles.”

And about how long a cadaver has to be in contact with a surface or object for the odour to be detected he’s quite clear: “Cross-contamination is immediate.”

7. Implications to previous post “Cadaverine

Of all things we said only one is put in question and that is what we said we thought about the fact the gate was not contaminated.

To remind readers, we said the gate was not marked for contamination when it should have been. And we maintain that it should have. Gerry, in our opinion, went through that gate 3 times.

In our “Cadaverine” post we said that we thought the lack of contamination was due to the fact that the clothing would be sufficient to block contaminating the hands that were holding the corpse.

The carpet square experiment clearly proves us wrong. The blankets in the experiment clearly absorbed the cadaver compound in enough quantity to cause the contamination of the carpet squares, a secondary contamination.

In all other situations, the contamination is much more extensive than we said it was. We said we thought only the direct contact of skin to surface would contaminate. The square- contamination proves otherwise. It would have been the whole body, even clothed, that would contaminate. Primary contamination in its direct contact (skin – surface) and secondary in its not direct contact (skin – cloth – surface).

Why is the gate not contaminated we don’t know.

Note that we could be right. The clothes of a recently washed and freshly clothed body could be enough to block the contamination as we don’t know under what exact circumstances the 2 cadavers in the carpet square experiment were wrapped with cotton blankets.

It seems the hospital did not carry out the usual procedures for washing the bodies before they were used, presumably so that no other substances could affect the results. If so, we also presume that any voids, or bodily leakages from the bodies could have permeated the blankets explaining the rapid rate in which, apparently, they absorbed the cadaver compound.

It could be that Jane Tanner instead of being inside apartment, as we think was, be at the backyard as a lookout and it was her who handled the gate.

It could be that Gerry wore surgical gloves out of professional instinct when handling the body and  taking them off when coming to “meet” Jez.

It could be that because we’re talking about a tertiary, or third-round, contamination (skin – cloth- hand – gate), there might not have been one.

It could be many things, all speculation. One thing is certain and that the gate was not marked so there was no vestiges of cadaver compound there.

Note that in our post “Cadaverine” we didn’t explain why location X was not contaminated. We said we didn’t know.

But the carpet square experiment also brings implications to this. It shows that the corpse was not handled with care, but with extra care. Most probably to protect against possible and likely bodily leakages that happen from a recently deceased body which doctors would be familiar with from training so, in our opinion, took extra care to avoid any sort of fluid contamination.

By blocking the contamination of those fluids, cadaver compound contamination was also blocked.

8. Conclusion

No question about it, Insane is absolutely spot-on about the carpet square experiment: This is a paper of central and vital importance in this case.”

It validates the fascinating olfactory capabilities of a dog's nose. And is putting them in use to fight crime.

As we have said, Insane confirms Eddie’s reliability. No question about it, cadaver compound was marked in 3 separate locations in apartment 5A:

And by bringing the carpet-square experiment into the equation with the conviction he does, he helps us show what an incompetent doctor Kate McCann is.

She says on page 253 of her book that cadaverine and putresence (sic) odour lasts no longer than 30 days. Carpet squares experiment proves otherwise.

But for us personally, is that Insane’s response helps clarify a big mystery.

Probably readers won’t know but Insane believes Maddie is dead:

“Not Textusa 21 January 2015 at 13:29


I don't discuss theories on here as a rule. I think she's dead. I think she has been dead since 3 May 2007. I do not think there was a massive conspiracy. I do not think it will ever be solved unless someone talks or her remains are found.”

Note, he THINKS she’s dead (guesswork) and he THINKS she has been dead since May 3 (guesswork again).

He thinks Maddie is dead and the mainstream media, governments and police forces (except PJ in 2007/2008) have refused to say the “D” word about Maddie. SY has even the remit to investigate an abduction.

And according to Insane “unless someone talks” we will never know what happened, meaning the dark secret is held by more than a person. A collective withholding of information.

If Insane thinks Maddie is dead then he also thinks the fund is fraudulent.

It seems to us that Insane there is a conspiracy by his own definition (not ours), and one that involves those who know first hand what the dark secret is, the mainstream media, governments and police forces. Insane is a “conspiracy loon” according to himself.

As the reader knows we believe that we are before a cover-up of massive proportions.

We have only found about his belief this year. And it has puzzled us why on earth would Insane believe Maddie dead.

He refutes all evidence about DNA and blood inside apartment 5A. When it comes to either of those subjects, even when 2 +2 = 4 he stamps his foot, crosses his arms and says it is 7 just because he says it is, then puffs up cheeks and holds his breath until he turns purple.

So when he came in guns blazing to glorify Eddie’s performance (something that he and we agree on) we found it completely out of character until we realised that it must be cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound, which makes him think Maddie is dead.

If not blood and not DNA, it can only be cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound. Whatever else allows him to think that Maddie is dead?

Because out of the 3, blood, DNA and cadaver compound, the last is the most condemning. The first 2 can be “explained” with fairytale rubbish but cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound, can't.

It's unequivocal presence means there was a cadaver in that apartment in at least 3 very peculiar locations and there's only a certain amount of diapers and rotting sea-bass one can bring to the table.

Meanwhile, we are patiently still waiting for a fully developed theory from him.

We would like to clarify that we're not making any direct attack on Insane. We're defending our position against those who contest our content. Unfortunately “those” are practically Insane.

Is this character the only one criticising us? Far from it. Many are those who have taken a dislike to us and do voice it.

We will ignore those that resort only to insult. The criticism from the others is either only about presentation and style or by the sole use of  the “I-argument”.

Examples of the “I-argument”: “I wouldn't take my kids if I was going swinging so it isn't swinging”, “I wouldn't take my kids' grandmother if I was going swinging so it isn't swinging”, “I think swinging is perfectly accepted so swinging is accepted by all”, “I don't think swinging justifies such a cover-up, so the cover-up is not about swinging”, “I wouldn't mind if my parish, my local supermarket and the teachers of my kids' school would know I was swinger so no one does either”, “I don't think so many could be involved, so they aren't”, etc.

And many other similar statements that we dealt with in our post “Swinging FMS” (FMS stands for Frequently Made Statements).

They forget that this is not about them but about what a small group of people, larger than the T9, thought what the consequences could be if they called authorities and owned up to what really had happened: a child had died by accident, killed by one of them.

It's not about judging if they thought right or if they thought wrong but simply about what went through their minds those minutes under enormous pressure in which the unreasonable is exaggerated and the reasonable diminished and made them decide to risk the simulation of an abduction.

And once the lie began its 1,000 mile journey then it stopped being about that decision and became about the lie. Until now and continuing.  

Post Scriptum:

(i) One year ago Praia da Luz was the centre of the world. The biggest ever operation launched by a police force on foreign country. Ridiculous but spectacular.

(ii) Six months ago, the last diligence known to the public done by that same police force on Operation Grange. An operation which the UK public is paying for dearly. Spectacularly expensive.

(iii) June 2 2015, Sepp Blatter steps down as head of FIFA. This represents hope for the Maddie case. Giants are meant to fall, only angels have wings.

(iv) Summer Break. We have promised and we have delivered. Time for a rest. Please enjoy the spectacle of the sun. We will.


  1. ''As these molecules were there, then it means there was an emitting source.

    ERVD dogs react to smell but what that reaction says is that in the area that is being marked there is a source. Somewhere near is the substance, more or less volatile, that is releasing, or emitting the airborne molecules.''


    You see, this is the basic problem.

    You didn't read that paper, did you? Just read some summary by a blogger. If you had read the paper perhaps you would understand, but you didn't, so you don't.

    You have 'decided' that the airborne particles cannot have persisted and that there has to be an ''emitting source''

    Wrong. Read the paper.

    1. Insane,

      Please refer us to the quote that supports your view that airborne particles persist and for how long.

      We find that truthseekers are eager to help with corrections and provide a source. Distractors do the opposite.

      We are still waiting for you to tell all of us the reasons why you think Maddie is dead.

    2. Not Textusa - you really are mendacious. There must be something psychologically wrong which enables you to keep this going. Sickening to think of you're playacting around the death (your words) of a child.

    3. @ Not Textusa - with all due respect, you still have not answered the question that textusa has asked - please would you kindly ansser or explain why you cannot answer - if you do not wish to answer directly to Textusa, then please reply to the many other observers here, thank you

  2. Eh.. ..are we talking about 2weeks or is this a longer vacation... What I'm I to do on a Friday?
    Haste ye back....please!

    1. Anonymous 6 Jun 2015, 03:02:00,

      Insane has finally explained why in his corner of the internet:

      He says this about why he has the opinion that Maddie is dead: "Nope. Opinion, based on a scientific analysis. Something you shouldn't attempt."

      He then says there is not enough data to come to any conclusion which leaves us wondering why he has concluded Maddie dead: "I'm a scientist. There is insufficient data for me to formulate an hypothesis and if I had one I certainly wouldn't be sharing it"

      But does recognise it's down to statistics and Eddie: "It is quite simple. No confirmed sightings of a missing child in 8 years. Statistics which predict a high probability that she is dead, Cadaver dog alerts at the last place she was seen while not proof are certainly indicative".

      So we were right about what we said in post. It is Eddie making Insane come to the scientifically based conclusion that Maddie is dead.

      Happy to see that Insane, like us, believes that Eddie marked the presence of Maddie's dead body inside that apartment. He's a scientist, he should know.

    2. To Insane/Not Textusa

      Any explanation, however undeveloped, becomes a theory
      To say M is dead is a theory, based on evidence you choose to believe.
      To say you think she's dead on a statistical basis is also valid.
      Add that you accept cadaver odour found adds to your theory,
      Now you have to explain the 2 concepts put together.
      So, cadaver odour was M or it wasn't. Your opinion is that it is.
      If it wasn't then someone else contributed to that odour. You would have to explain who.
      You're arguing that it wasn't death when parents present because of dining in big round table. Therefore you accept M may have died at the hands of another person. You have to explain who.
      And explain why parents have lied for this person.
      Not demanding, all opinions are valid.
      You can't help formulating a theory once you start to accept or reject evidence.
      But without explaining, without extending the logic, you avoid any challenge.

    3. ''Now you have to explain the 2 concepts put together.''

      Excuse me?

      I most certainly do not ''have'' to do anything of the sort.

      I have based my conclusions so far on what is reasonable to conclude so far, either because the evidence supports it or because previous experience indicates a certain outcome. Beyond that, no-one can draw any firm conclusions and I have certainly no intention of discussing my private thoughts with some random on the internet. If you don't like it, tough.

    4. Not Textusa - a typical snake in the grass who likes to spit from the sidelines, but when called out, runs away. School yard bully who becomes a tower of jelly when it meets its match. Gives science and scientist a bad name.

  3. Another excellent post,I wonder if Operation Grange are investigating the fund that was set up to find Madeleine, which so far has been used by Person's of a bogus nature?
    Quite why Parents of a "Missing Child" would set up fund for that person and use the funds accumulated to pay for "Specific Libel Lawyers" as their representatives in the name of the child that is missing,for their benefit?
    There has certainly been a long lot of Snouts in that trough,eh Clarence and friends?

    Here in the UK, the present Government are being overwhelmed by the need to investigate suspected cover ups,child abuse,Deaths,killings in Ireland and prominent persons from the Establishments,quite unbelievable of the amount of people who were involved !?
    The best of luck to Mr Goncalo Amaral I hope you get justice against the group of "special friends" for the way these person's who have tried to destroy your credibility, integrity, may you live long in the hope of the truth and justice.

  4. Love this post - especially your clear pointing out of strategy of disruption. My favourite is the image right at the start!

  5. (iv) Summer Break. We have promised and we have delivered. Time for a rest. Please enjoy the spectacle of the sun. We will.

    So soon, Textusa! :(
    What will we do on Fridays?
    Our brains are going to starve with the lack of a proper nourishment.:(
    On your own merit, you became indispensable for most part of us ...

    We know you´ve had quite a lot of work and you deserve to have a pause.:D
    Enjoy your holidays.
    Thank you for your hard work.

  6. Absolutely brilliant love it enough said I'm off for a gin and tonic xx

  7. Hello. I enjoy reading your posts, however I'm a little confused as to why you are certain that Madeleine had to have been moved to an unmarked location - "X" - to be cleaned up and her clothes changed. How do we know that Maddie was cleaned up and changed at all? And if she was, couldn't it have been done where she fell/died - in the sitting room near the window? Sorry if I've missed something obvious, but this confused me last week so I thought I'd ask.

    1. Hi Anon, If you loved someone who had passed away, which I believe in MM's case her parents did (love her), would you want her remains cleaned in the same location where she/he passed? - very likely not - you would want to cleanse, re-dress him/her (no loving parent would want their child to be found naked publicly alive let alone dead (I don't care what your beliefs are the thought of being found dead and naked is a humiliating thought - ergo, we do not wish the same fate on others - especially our children), and would process this unthinkable act somewhere else - be it another room, other location, I think that is only natural - imo, if textusa's theory is correct, then she would have been carefully taken out of the room/apartment and, then redressed for a burial/sea burial, or as some have said cremation - imo, she would have had the best send off that one (or two / many) could have given under the circumstances - imo, whatever the reason for her 'demise', her parents did love her and must still do, but something happened that could not be revealed - if she did pass away, what loving parent - whatever their parenting skills chart reveal (excluding the obviously cruel, who are rampant in the media and no mystery cloaks their cruelty), would want to prepare their child for burial / cremation in the same spot where they passed?

  8. My thoughts on this: Madeleine clearly had been bleeding from injury / injuries (hence dog alerting to blood / wall splatter etc). She lay on floor tiles after falling whilst decisions were made. She ended up in bedroom closet. They would not, to my mind, have transported her 'smeared in blood' directly into closet. As her parents, who loved her, I cannot see that they would not have cleaned her up and prepared her in some way, wrapping her up. Even if only to prevent further blood smears on other surfaces. To clean her I assume they would need water / bowls / wipes / fresh clothes. I assume they would wish to hold her / gently comb her hair? Where in the apartment would these actions be carried out? At the place where she fell and lay? Or in a private room - with no risk of being seen and able to do it with dignity. I am finding it very unlikely this would be carried out where she initially fell.

    Thanks Textusa - look forward to your return - will miss your posts and have appreciated the amount of work that you put into each post.

  9. You certainly have delivered, big time :)

    But goodness I didn't realise you have a summer break Textusa. Is that all summer? I've been glued to your blog since I found it last October and my brain will shrink and shrivel without my regular Friday fix of intellectual stimulation :(

    Not that I begrudge you a break of course, so much hard work goes into your posts, you certainly deserve one and hope you enjoy it and get to recharge your batteries.

    As regards Gerry and the gate, there could be a very simple explanation for it not being "contaminated". Perhaps it was already open? I'm not aware of any reason to suppose the gate was even closed, unless I've missed something.

    Certainly someone carrying a child across their arms, as per Tannerman, could not negotiate a gate very well, so either someone opened it for him (JT for example, as you suggest) or it simply wasn't closed in the first place.

    Nuala x

  10. Unpublished Anon at 6 Jun 2015, 17:29:00,

    Thank you for your words.

    Please understand that whatever our opinions of the person you refer to, we prefer to avoid attacking them more than is necessary (but watch what they say and who they align with).

    The FIFA situation shows that nobody is too important to fall, eventually.

  11. Hi Textusa
    I know that it is not normally accepted of using articles from other web sites, but it could have a possible connection to both of your previous posts.
    The post is from Dr Martin Roberts,titled"Bring out your Dead" posted on the jillhavern forum.
    The post asks about owners of a vacant apartment 5J and the possibility that Madeleine McCann body could have been stored there for a short duration.
    I know it is a theory and Gerry Mc doesn't mind theory's but you need proof,perhaps we are not far off from the proof!?

  12. I seen that also and while I think often he is very close to the mark on this occasion I thought it unlikely 1. They couldn't guarantee that the police wouldn't search the other apartments that night or the next day. 2. They would have had to move it by hand the next day or later which would have been far to risky. I do find the interview they gave fascinating def something strange going on


    Maddie cop launches appeal against McCann’s record damages ‘win’ of €500,000

    Following a huge crowd-funding drive that has raised over £29,000 from well-wishers almost exclusively from the UK, former police inspector Gonçalo Amaral has today filed his appeal against the €500,000-plus damages awarded against him in a civil case taken out by the parents of Madeleine McCann.

    The Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral published the news this morning, thanking “each and every one” of the nearly 2000 people who have given money to the British gofundme appeal that has helped take Amaral’s legal fight to its next stage.

    As the message went out, donations continued apace - with over £390 raised in a matter of hours.

    Several of the day’s donors commented this was “news worth celebrating”, but more than one suggested the story is “unlikely to be covered by mainstream media”.

    Indeed, by coincidence British media is much more focused today on Madeleine’s mother Kate who is leading a bike ride for a missing people’s charity.

    Kate McCann has told reporters that she is “really encouraged” by progress being made by police in the eight-year hunt for her daughter.

    Meantime, the gofundme appeal - started by a young Birmingham woman who was only 14 when Madeleine went missing - is set to continue.

    Updates are promised - though with the speed of Portuguese justice it is anyone’s guess when Amaral’s appeal will be set a date for hearing.

    As readers may be aware, the long-running civil case taken out by Madeleine’s parents centred on claims Amaral made in his book The Truth of the Lie in which he suggested the McCanns had faked their daughter’s abduction.

    The McCann’s said the book caused them “devastation, desperation, anxiety and pain”.

    Amaral’s supporters however claim they “will not let this case pass into obscurity” and “do not tolerate the leaving of unanswered questions”.


    15 Jun 2015 A Note of Gratitude

    Dear friends,

    Today, the 15th of June, my appeal against the sentence that has recently been produced in the trial concerning my book, "Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira", was filed at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

    Now I serenely await the Appellate Court's decision, reaffirming my confidence in Portuguese Justice.

    The wave of solidarity that was generated to support me has been very moving and makes me feel extremely humble. I am so very grateful to each and every one of you, who have supported me and continue to do so; none of this would have been possible without you.

    Winston Churchill said: "All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honour; duty; mercy; hope."

    Truth is also simple. It is truth that guides me, and it will continue to do so, in its simplicity and greatness.

    Thank you very much.

    Gonçalo de Sousa Amaral


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.