Tuesday, 16 June 2015

Playful molecules

1. Introduction

We know we said in our post “Cadaver compound” that we were going on summer break. We did go and are on a break. A long break as all summer breaks are.

We didn’t expect to return so soon, especially taking into account the wall of silence around the case in comparison with just a year ago, but we felt we had to.

The reason being that we consider the EVRD and blood dogs that were in Praia da Luz in 2007, Eddie and Keela respectively, to be of pivotal importance to the outing of the truth and they deserve that we share the laptop with the sun as an exception.

We have noticed that lately the dogs are being put, very subtly, in question.

For example, confusing a tracking dog with an EVRD one by anyone familiar with the Maddie case, is not innocent.

We are writing this post not because of the urgency or its immediate importance but out of opportunity.

To write this post after coming back from a summer break we would be asking our readers to make an extra effort to recollect what has been said. This is why we’re doing it now.

It follows our posts “Cadaverine” and “Cadaver compound” and seeks to nip in the bud misinformation about what the dogs have revealed for us about this case.

2. Barking dogs and insult

Insane is our most visible and overt detractor.

He has created a blog exclusively dedicated to us. He started it 2 years ago, in June 2013 and has put in it, according to last count, 140 posts.

Years before that he stalked the blog with the kind of comments that have become his trademark: abusive.

Literally, years dedicated to us.

That means he’s not moved just by some sort of a fleeting anger but rather shows a continuous effort to detract from us.

An effort with a mission, emotion has nothing to do with it. Insane, although a very impulsive individual is driven by reason, a purpose.

One must then understand his mission.

The vast majority of our readers find the character abhorrent and annoying. He is both and then much more than that.  However, and this is fundamental, nothing pleases him more than realising people find him to be so.

That’s exactly what he wants to achieve.

He wants to spread unpleasantness. He wants the air here to be so thick that people will simply avoid it and not return. Thus his vitriolic, rude, arrogant and misogynistic abuse. It has to be that way. It has to hit hard. It has to be aggressive, it has to drive people away.

When one is confronted with such aggression, even if one doesn’t firmly agree with it (we have noted that a few have publicly expressed they find his blog interesting), one cannot help but link Textusa's name to gratuitous verbal aggression in the  back of one's mind even if we had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If one has to make a choice of which path to choose between one that passes by a vicious dog that barks madly while throwing himself at the gate and another that has no such audible and violent aggression, which one would the reader choose to take?

Note the dog causes no harm whatsoever as he’s behind gates. He’s simply being unpleasant, viciously very unpleasant. Because of it one tends to avoid passing by him as much as possible.

Insane is the vicious dog 3 or 4 doors down our block.

There was no one there, he was the one who created the menace because he wanted a menace there, to drive people away.

This technique is replicated almost everywhere in various corners of the internet by less overt “Insanes” without the overt aggression.

In this case the aggression takes the form of ridiculing, one used by bullies to balance their lack of argument.

Readers there find us to be  unpleasant but cannot pinpoint a reason, not realising that it is the fruit of the accumulated bullying of our opinions for no reason other than to ridicule.

This has been very effective.

We have found ourselves being subject to a murky kind of unspoken censorship implemented by those who shout outraged, and rightly so, against the censorship, unspoken but implemented that Mr Amaral has been subjected to by an unwritten gagging order in the UK.

People seem to be afraid, with few gratifying exceptions, to repeat our opinion. Many when expressing it do it an apologetic manner as if they’re speaking on behalf of the devil at an angel gathering.

Interesting to see how some find it absolutely preposterous and scandalous to even dare think how a large group of people (not the high-powered politicians but the Ocean Club and Mark Warner workers and ex-pats) would lie or maintain the lie in a cover-up to protect the reputation of those we say were swinging that week, but find it perfectly acceptable and logical that the same group of people can lie to protect a man who is said to have raped and killed a 4yr old, something we have repeatedly said we don't believe happened.

For them, it is evident that a mother-in-law would never come along for adult fun but there’s nothing wrong for her to have a nepiophile for a son-in-law. Nor for the entire family of the victim to close ranks around the murderer.

We want to make it very clear that we think only a very small group of people outside the T9 took part in the concealment of the body.

The vast majority of those we think were there swinging were confronted with the situation and went along with it in the days that followed as their reputation was also on the line and they felt needed protection.

Do note how Insane reacts with absolute disgust when we “accuse” – one cannot accuse anyone else of doing something completely legal – others of swinging but does not utter a single word against those who accuse others of paedophilia, a horrific crime.

To be pointed out as a swinger is horrible but to be pointed out a paedo, well, one just has to tough it out and move on.

For us to show how someone has lied and to say we think they did it to protect their own reputation (even if not the case) is for us to be criminal deserving to be burnt at the stake, but for others to say that others lie to protect a man who killed and raped a little girl (even if he didn’t) is understandable.

Insane does not turn on the paedo theory because the paedo thesis serves his purpose.

It’s a passionate subject that generates the most intense emotions – and rightly so – but it is also one that blinds people. It intoxicates and it adheres easily like cadaverine and like cadaverine is almost impossible to wash away.

Blinded people will not be able to see the truth nor find it. If one doesn't want people to smell the scent of a rose one just has to place under their noses a rotting fish and paedophilia is one that really stinks.

About paedophilia let us express here and now that we think it be one of the most, if not the most endemic problem facing the UK today. A vile cancer that eats the nation away because it seems to run in the corridors of power and influence where it finds the disgusting nepotistic protection it needs to continue.

A sickening problem that needs an urgent and radical panacea.

That said, we’re absolutely certain paedophilia had nothing to do with Maddie’s death.

3. How pleasant it is to be “unpleasant then

The label of being unpleasant which we recognise has been stuck on our forehead by a well-orchestrated campaign is not something that displeases us. On the contrary, it really pleases us.

For us to speak about it, is not to complain about it but only to let our readers know that we are not missing it.

It pleases us because it produces the opposite of the pretended effect and helps us get the readers we really want to have, the true independent thinkers. Those not fooled and not easily disheartened.

We trust readers are able to see through the transparent wording used against us, overtly or otherwise.

They can see how we detail things and fully explain the logic behind our opinions and the only reason they can find for conclusions not to be taken on board by others is simply because they have originated here.

Those who choose to pass in front of “Insane’s gate” knowing they have to endure the vicious barking and yet insist on passing show us these tactics instead of driving people away are attracting them.

These readers can see, we hope, the transparency in our effort to help find the truth in an affair filled with so much misinformation and with so many egos interfering.

They may not agree with us, and many don’t, but they show they want to accompany us in our journey.

Is there a greater honour? No, there isn’t and words cannot express our gratitude.

It’s this choice made by our readers that makes us stronger, going full circle. Insane and others drive away those who don’t matter, but they make the number of those who do to increase and that in turn makes us more motivated than ever.

4. The barking dog

Insane is an individual who shows he has profound knowledge of the case and in all relevant matters pertaining to the affair.

Only with that profound knowledge is one able to seriously misinform, distract and distort. The little fish from the other side stay clear away from us and do their thing in their dark little ponds.

We have not elected Insane, Insane has elected us.

To be clear, we have no respect for the individual. We used to find him occasionally amusing but not after this:

His words: “The staff were getting wise to Textusa, and had drawn a map of her favourite toileting spots”.

Independent of us being right or wrong, these 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) clearly represent locations of little Maddie’s body.

All those following the case link, agreeing or disagreeing, those 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) to Maddie's body.

Insane, as will be shown in this post, trusts in Eddie's (cadaver dog) accuracy and agrees fully that those 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) are where this EVRD dog marked cadaver odour.

To refer to them as “toileting spots” is an insult to the little girl’s memory.

Words to reprimand such an insult have yet to be invented, much less qualify it.

It makes the word sicko cross one's mind but even that one falls short.

It shows the kind of individual we’re up against and it shows how the other side needs to resort to such disgraceful tactics. The concept of a conscience is unknown to them.

To us, for Insane to possess such a degree of commitment demonstrates first-hand knowledge about what really happened. We are not saying he had a direct participation in Maddie’s death and the immediate following hours but in all else that followed.

His first-hand knowledge can be, as is has been, very helpful to us all.

For instance, the discussion in the last few posts involving the marking by the EVRD dog has proved to be invaluable.

Thanks to Insane we achieved much more than we had ever hoped for.

It started with us wanting to prove a single point: the absence of Eddie (cadaver dog) marking does not rule out the possibility of the body having been in Murat’s property on the night of the 3rd.

Insane agrees with us: “Proved what, precisely? That any location, anywhere in the world, where a cadaver dog has not alerted could be the location of her body?”

Almost perfect score if only he had used “the” instead of an “a”: we proved any location, anywhere in the world, where THE cadaver dog has not alerted could be the location of her body.

It does narrow things down because there weren’t that many properties that the cadaver dog searched in Praia da Luz in 2007.

All locations Eddie (cadaver dog) searched and in which he didn’t alert could have been the location where the body could have been. And among these, Murat’s property is one.

But the interesting part of Insane’s response was his insistence in trying to prove that what Eddie (cadaver dog) alerted to was the result of only an airborne contamination by a gas, which he called cadaver odour.

5. References

Insane minimises our conclusion because he says we didn't read the paper on the carpet square experiment which he reputes to be of prime importance about EVRD dogs. He first brings this up in his response to our post “Cadaverine” in his blog:

About the experiment he boasts “So you haven't read the paper, then? Despite the fact that I sent you a link to it?”

Insane seems to quickly forget what he does.

We never said we read the paper. We stated clearly where we sourced from. What we sourced, was from people who we are sure, read the paper. What we found was enough for us to understand how the experiment was done as well as to understand what its objectives were.

We will explain why we didn’t read the paper but first let’s see if Insane provided, or not, a link to the paper as he claims:

“This is completely incorrect. See this paper - 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.


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.”

It’s a link to the blog Dogs Don't Lie not to “the paper”.

For Insane it seems, according to his words, that blogs are places beneath him for any kind of research so we don’t understand why he pointed one to us.

To say he provided us the link to the paper is to lie.

We note that although he claims to have read the paper but hasn’t made to date a single quote from it. We very much doubt he’s read it.

We think he's only read this passage posted on JH Forum which we think is a quote from the paper:

“Two deceased individuals, a 60-year-old male (A) and a 63-year-old male (B) were admitted to the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg. They were immediately transported to a tent placed within the inner courtyard of the institute. The location for this investigation was specifically chosen in order to minimize a potential cross contamination of any odors with those of stored, putrefied bodies within the Institute. Both men (A and B) had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively.

Brand new carpet squares 20 cm _ 20 cm were purchased and used as the medium for the odor transport. Before the initiation of this investigation, the carpet squares were stored in airtight containers outside the boundaries of the Institute of Legal Medicine.

The two bodies were placed in a supine position on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual. A total of 32 carpet squares were placed subsequently underneath the backside of the torsos. Within 45 min of the arrival at the institute, 24 carpet squares (body A) were ‘‘contaminated’’ for 10 min during three consecutive sessions. Within 15 min of arriving at the institute, eight other carpet squares (body B) were contaminated for 2 min during two subsequent sessions. Additionally, living individuals who denied having had any contact with deceased tissues served as control subjects and contaminated an additional eight carpet squares. Immediately following the contamination, the carpet squares were placed into airtight glass jars and brought to the Police Dog Training Center (LPS 36) at the Hamburg State Police Department.”

The reason we haven’t read the paper is because one has to pay to read it. It’s available here:


We quoted all the publicly available information from this site as the reader can verify in our post “Cadaver compound”. The rest only after paying $31.50 USD.

We trust in the words of those we are certain read it, namely Cat Warren who wrote the book “What the Dog Knows: Scent, Science, and the Amazing Ways Dogs Perceive the World”.

The sources we read focused on the fact that the experiment had the following objective: after carpet squares contaminated by pressure of blanket wrapped cadavers, verify if EVRD dogs marked them or not.

We saw no need and until proven otherwise still don't think it necessary to purchase access to the paper. It will inform us of scientific detail that we do not repute as necessary to understand that the cadavers contaminated the blankets and that the blankets in turn contaminated the carpet squares. 

6. “Airpressure” contamination

Let’s see how Insane adamantly concludes that the square carpet experiment was only, and only about proving airborne contamination:

“Unfortunately for Textusa, the Transmission IS airborne. There was no physical contact between the cadaver and the scent collection media - the tiles. The bodies were dry, with an intact skin. There was only one puncture wound, from an IV, and that was covered with a dressing prior to the study. The maximum time of exposure to the environment was 10 minutes; far too brief for any breakdown of the skin. Therefore the only means of contamination of the carpet tiles was airborne.”

Insane has a serious memory problem. He forgot he says this too:

“No, they had post mortem intervals of 110 minutes and 120 minutes”.

Those 110/120 minutes post mortem just throw out the window his “The maximum time of exposure to the environment was 10 minutes; far too brief for any breakdown of the skin”

The 10 minutes was the maximum time the blanket wrapped cadavers laid on, or exposed to, the carpet squares after around 2 hours after death having passed, was enough time to allow for “breakdown of the skin” and that of all other organs.

That is not even being specious.

This is creating a fact where it doesn’t exist for the convenience of distorting what the 10 minutes were about. This is to lie using factual information by giving it a different meaning than the one it has.

A conclusion based on an invented premise that doesn’t exist is hardly a scientific one and he does claim to be a scientist.

If Insane was a banker as he says he’s a scientist, his bank wouldn’t see a penny of our money.

Later in the post we will show why Insane needs the cadaver odour to appear so quickly.

We find it extremely hard to see an airborne contamination happening where there are no air passages. The cadaver is in direct contact with blanket, so no air between them and nor is there between the blanket and the carpet square as they are in direct contact with each other.

Plus, it seems pretty evident to us that contamination occurs by direct contact via weight pressure exerted by contaminants, the blanket wrapped cadavers, and intended receptors, the carpet squares.

Wouldn’t logic determine that if it was any sort of air contamination to be tested for the squares to be placed at various distances from the cadavers and not placed beneath them?

One would expect the experiment to have been done with the cadavers both wrapped and unwrapped in blankets, to establish the differences between them if airborne contamination was indeed the question.

To see the carpet square experiment as one about airborne contamination is to see the milk van as the space shuttle just because both are painted white.

Please note that the scientists of the carpet square experiment did not place the cadaver directly in contact the squares, which would constitute the nearest replica to the Maddie case, most probably because it seemed evident to them the dogs would mark the squares without hesitation and that their marking would be obviously accurate.

To the scientists, what Eddie (cadaver dog) marked (direct contact between body and contaminated surface) is so evidently accurate that it doesn't need an experiment to validate it. 

7. Gas v other states

But Insane forces airborne contamination for a reason. He needs, as the reader will see, for there not to be any residue vestige.

A residue vestige would be a fountain from which airborne molecules would be released and Insane needs for the molecules to arrive where they arrived coming from somewhere else. We will explain later why.

To have molecules arrive from somewhere else he needs for 2 things to have happened.

The first is that Insane needs the origin of the airborne molecules of the odour to be gaseous. Its origin must be gaseous. For Insane the cadaver cannot have left behind any physical vestige of its decomposition besides its airborne molecules otherwise the location where the body had been could be determined which would invalidate the thesis of molecules being there but having come from somewhere else.

If a compound is anything but gaseous then it could leave residues when contaminating and Insane doesn't want that to be possible,

The second, as a corollary to the first, is that he needs that ALL decomposing contamination by the cadaver to be airborne. No other kind of contamination is possible to support the origin of the odour to be gaseous.

There are 2 ways to go about misinforming about the properties of something and both involve exaggeration. One is to exaggerate what something can’t do and the other to exaggerate what it can.

In this case Insane exaggerates about what the airborne molecules detected by Eddie (cadaver dog) are capable of doing.

He starts by mystifying how the odour is synthesised. There’s no such thing as a cadaver compound he states adamantly. It’s all only gas nothing but gas. And in capital letters to make sure we all understand that perfectly well:


(...) The body does not synthesize pure, liquid cadaverine. This has been explained to you about ten times.”

Note how he is insistent about it not being a syrupy liquid or anything else but just an odour:

“I have named it countless times, but you are too (censored) ignorant to take it on board

It is not ''Cadaver Compound''

''Compound'' has a specific scientific meaning, so to call it that is incorrect. Call it Cadaver odour or the odour of decomposition”

He brings into the debate the concept of “pure form”.

As far as we know, the pure form of something is that something not mixed up with anything else.

When something is not 100% pure it means it has an additive. It's that something plus, however little, is something else. 

If cadaverine, in pure form is a syrupy liquid and putrescine, in pure form is equally syrupy then the resulting compound of the 2 can only be syrupy. These are the 2 main elements from where that particular odour originates.

But there are at least 6 reasons why it can’t be a gas (speaking about the substance that emits the odour and not the odour itself which by definition has to gaseous):

#1 - Our daily experience

We all have witnessed in our lives the decomposition process of perishables. We can see it, and we can see it on whatever is putrefying so we can see that it’s not gas.

Some decomposition processes of our perishables are almost odourless while others emit an unbearable smell. But one thing is the smell which is gaseous, the other is what is causing it, or the source of that smell and that is not a gas.

#2 - The internet

We researched the internet about Cadaverine. Visited many sites, some even technically scientific. None mention cadaverine being synthesised in gas form by the human body or speak of having a pure form or any other.

However many do refer to it being a syrupy liquid.

#3 – Basic science says it can’t be a gas.

We have seen that science has been unable to determine the composition of something that causes the odour. It's been unable to do that due to the complexity of whatever that something is.

Let's be very clear, it is something.

We have called it a compound but it may be a solution.

In a compound there’s a chemical reaction between elements while in a solution the different substances in the mixture they don’t react with one another.

Let’s be simplistic again. Let’s suppose that something is made up of only the 2 substances we know are present in it: cadaverine and putrescine. Whatever we say about these 2 substances will also apply to all the other substances present in that something. We have read there are around 400 of them in the various stages of decomposition.

The body does not produce 2-in-1 substances. Although it produces cadaverine and putrescine simultaneously, it produces them separately. It doesn't produce a cadavrescine or a putreverine, it produces cadaverine AND putrescine.

What happens next we don’t know. We do know these 2 substances “meet” somewhere but we don't know if they react with each other when they do. If they form new substance or if each retain their “individuality” when together.

If they become a new substance then it will be a compound, if they just mix with each other then it will be a solution. The fact that both are referred to individually as cadaverine and putrescine is an indication that we are encountering solution when it comes to the interaction between just these 2 substances.

Gas and liquid are both not rigid and both have no fixed shape, but the latter has one thing that the first doesn’t: a fixed volume.

This means that in a liquid there's fixed concentration of its elements in the mixture while that doesn't happen in gaseous mixtures.

To better understand this let's use a wine as an example. Please imagine you have in front of you 3 bottles of wine: 1 merlot, 1 cabernet sauvignon and the other a pinot noir.

If one fills up a glass with equal portions of the 3, the resulting mixture will produce a wine with a distinct aroma.

If the reader repeats this process and puts the exact same portions (quantities, in practical terms) in a different glass, then that exact same odour will be repeated.

To do this 1,000 times is to obtain 1,000 times the exact same aroma.

The aroma that is released by this mixture of wines will be a constant one as long as the proportionality between the 3 different wines is maintained.

This happens because liquid has a fixed volume. This consistency is impossible to obtain when one mixes up 2 or more gases.

If cadaverine and putrescine were synthesized in gas form there would be no way of keeping stable the proportion of each element in the gaseous mix. We would end up having completely different levels of concentration of molecules per substance per unit of volume, as the quantities of each would vary randomly between different points of a volume.

If one now brings into the picture all the other elements besides cadaverine and putrescine, which could be up to around 400, then one can easily understand that the possibilities for the resulting odour are almost limitless.

But with liquids, the quantities of elements is irrelevant. In the wine analogy, if one mixes 400 wines instead of only 3, as long as the proportions of each that is put into the glass is constant one can repeat the aroma with precision in such a complex mixture.

The constancy of proportions of each of the 400 substances involved in the various stages of decomposition present in the complex mixture that produces the odour for which the EVRD dog is trained to react is assured by the chemical process by which all are being produced separately but simultaneously.

It's a very complex mixture but the odour that results from it is unique.

EVRD dogs are trained for the unique odours produced by human death.

If both cadaverine and putrescine were to be made in gas form in a decomposing body, each substance would release its molecules independently from the other.

The molecules of one element would float to one side while  the molecules of the other would go somewhere else. This dispersion would also happen with each of all the other many substances present.

The number of possible odours would be close to infinite simply depending on the number of molecules of each of the around 400 substances going up the dog's nostrils every time he inhaled.

The resulting randomness would render useless the EVRD dogs.

For the odour to be unique and so recognisable by the EVRD dog it can only originate from a liquid compound/solution made up with constant concentrations of its elements.

Only in that case will its emitted airborne molecules or VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) produce one and only one distinct odour, recognised by the EVRD dog. 

#4 – Martin Grime says it's not

Says Martin Grime:

“’Dead body scent’ cannot be removed by cleaning. The compounds [don’t say that Martin, someone will be really very upset] adhere to surfaces. The scent can be ‘masked’ by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog’s olfactory system is able to separate odour and identify specific compounds [saying compound again, Martin??] and mixes to a cellular level.”

We wonder how Insane thinks airborne molecules can be cleaned. We’re sure it must be done a molecule a time. One grabs a molecule from the air and gives it a good polish.

Only a source from where VOCs are emitted can be cleaned. Clean that vestige and the emission ends and the airborne molecules dissipate naturally.

Or one can attempt to clean. In case of this compound it's almost impossible to clean the source once a surface is contaminated.

#5 – Martin Grime and Wikipedia say it's not

Says Martin Grime:

“The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through ’volatile compounds’ that in certain configurations are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditional response ’ALERT’. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds [Martin Grime, last warning. Stop misbehaving] cannot be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the by ’alert’ by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.”

Says Wikipedia about Volatile Organic Compounds:

“Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that have a high vapor pressure at ordinary room temperature. Their high vapor pressure results from a low boiling point, which causes large numbers of molecules to evaporate or sublimate from the liquid or solid form of the compound [et tu, Wikipedia????] and enter the surrounding air. For example, formaldehyde, which evaporates from paint, has a boiling point of only –19 °C (–2 °F).

VOCs are numerous, varied, and ubiquitous. They include both human-made and naturally occurring chemical compounds. Most scents or odours are of VOCs.”

 #6 – The cadaver

In the decomposition, and speaking only of cadaverine, there is the emission of gas in minimal quantities

Cadaverine is the decarboxylation product of the amino acid, lysine. Decarboxylation is a chemical reaction that removes a carboxyl group and releases carbon dioxide (CO2). To understand, the majority of the lysine molecule becomes cadaverine and a residual carbon dioxide is released.

Evidently the odour picked up by Eddie (cadaver dog) is not CO2. It is not this minimal gaseous release that causes the cadaver odour.

If the whole decomposition process was only gaseous, then the body would very quickly swell up and bloat with all the gas building inside. Every single tissue, every single cell, would be producing gas in a significant quantity.

We will refrain from describing what that would mean.

These 6 reasons show very clearly that Insane is making things up as he goes along to make them fit conveniently where he wants them to fit, independent of reason or logic.

About the molecular structure of the compound Insane is able to contradict himself in the same sentence. We said it has to have more than 2 known elements, cadaverine and putrescine, to it:

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

He responds saying that it doesn’t – so it has the 2 – but then goes on to mention other substances:

“No, it doesn't. Please do not try to make quantum leaps of logic with respect to a subject you know nothing about. Also, stop referring to it as a ''compound''. It is not a compound. If the other molecules could be determined, they too could be synthesized.”

What others substances can there be in the compound for Insane if he says that we’re wrong in saying there are more than 2 substances present in the compound?

And if this compound was made up of only cadaverine and putrescine, wouldn’t science have broken by now the compound’s “code”, or to be more precise, the compound’s composition?

It’s because science hasn’t determined, yet, that compound’s composition that we say the compound produced by the body during its decomposition process is a very complex compound.

Have we repeated the word compound enough?

9. Compound or compounds?

Insane is very persistent that he doesn’t want us to call the source from where the odour originates as compound.

The reason is simple. He doesn’t want it to be a smell of something, he wants it to be just a smell.

The difference being that the first means it originates from something solid or liquid and the other the smell is just gas.

First, we would like to say that it’s 100% correct for us to call it compound. It's correct because we called it that. We’re not being arrogant or saying that we know more than anyone else. We just gave a name to something that didn't have a name before.

In our “Cadaver compound” post we explained how science hadn't named it yet because due to its complexity it had been unable to determine to date the exact composition of what makes EVRD dogs react.

As it didn't (and doesn’t) have a name, we called it cadaver compound. We could have called it bezidroglianic mix or simplophotrophic liquid. We didn’t, we called it cadaver compound.

Having explained that, the use of the word compound by us is then correct as the reader knows exactly as to what we are referring to when saying it.

We are not scientists nor do we claim to be. If in the future or near future science determines its composition and if science gives it that name we will not seek any copyrights or accuse anyone of plagiarism.

We called it a compound because although its exact composition is undetermined, we are certain there are chemical reactions between some of its elements. We wanted to convey the idea of consistency of the source of the cadaver odour so we chose the word compound.

Substances or elements make up a compound. Compounds can combine with other compounds to form a new compound.

Are we being scientifically imprecise? Would there be a better one to identify it? Possibly but that would be discussing useless facts, or as we called them in our “Cadaver compound” post, useless truths.

Until science says what it is and gives it a name the best we can do is to call what we think best that readers will understand.

But is it just a compound, or a single odour, or is it a cocktail of compounds, the combination of various odours?

As we’ve seen, Eddie (cadaver dog) doesn’t react to pseudo-scents. It’s not enough to mix up cadaverine with putrescine. There are over 400 components in decomposition over its stages.

The fact that EVRD dogs recognise odours from different stages of decomposition shows clearly they are not a one-smell-dog as we simplistically said in our “Cadaverine” post.

They have a range of odours that indicate that there’s no question they are from a human cadaver.

The EVRD dog recognises that particular cocktail of odours, and it doesn’t confuse it with the one from a dead rat or one from a dead skunk.

Nor does Eddie (cadaver dog) confuse it with a man made one made up of synthesised substances.

He recognises only that of a human being (only exception being that of a decomposing pig, and even in that there is no absolute certainty if EVRD dogs can or cannot tell them apart).

The best way to describe what an EVRD dog does is to compare it with a human being recognising a wine by its aroma.

When one smells wine, one can smell vanilla, berries, spice aromas as separate smells. Blindfolded, one can differentiate a red from a white wine just from that cocktail of aromas.

But humans do one thing that a dog doesn’t and that is to rationalise. We are able to analyse what we are smelling.

One can describe the aromas because one has smelled them before either by themselves or in other products. And one is able to recognise the final product not only as wine but to the precision of it being red or white.

Humans analyse what they smell but dogs don't.

The dog will only react to an odour he’s been trained to react to. Put a thousand odours under his nose but only when he detects the one he’s been trained for will he bark, his way to say: “that’s the one!”

A dog can distinguish a huge range different scents in a way humans can't.

Going back to the wine comparison, a dog is not trained just to distinguish a red from a white wine so to speak but for much more than that.

Using the wine as an example. Let's imagine we want to train a dog to identify a wine. How precise would he be?

He could be trained to distinguish from what exact region a red wine is from. For example to react only when he comes across a Bordeaux.

He could be trained to pinpoint from where it was from, determining if it was, for example, Pomerol and not from St. Estephe, Pauillac, St. Julien, Margaux, Graves/Pessac Leognan, St. Emilion or Sauternes.

He could be trained to react only to Pomerol Bordeaux from the year 2000. That particular region, sub-region and year.

Is there only one Pomerol Bordeaux? No, there are 42 producers, going from Bon Pasteur to Vray Croix de Gay.

The subtleties that make the difference between them, would all come under a range of odours (which we would call the “2000 Pomerol Bordeaux compound”).

A dog trained to react only to this range of odours (plural) would react only to the odour (singular as it refers to the specific odour of this particular group of wines) of these wines. Not to any other. Not any other red or other Bordeaux. Much less a white.

A dog's nose is one mean and precise machine.

Wine produces odour and these odours come from wine. Airborne molecules, or Volatile Organic Compounds, originated from a liquid.

A dog is like a computer. It doesn’t think, it only acts as told, or in the dog’s case, trained. If one tells a computer to light up a bulb whenever it comes across a number between the range of 1,589,876,536 and 1,589,876,559 one can be certain that if the light bulb comes on then it has come across a number within that range.

When an EVRD dog marks a location it's because he has come across the odour that has originated from what we have called “Cadaver compound”.

That’s why in the Martin Grime report in the PJ Files he said “Scientists accept that there is no forensic testing equipment as discriminatory as the dogs olfactory system at this present time”.

Nature is unbeatable, no question about it. EVRD dogs smell human, and only human, death whatever it is made up from. Simple!

10. Lingering molecules

For Insane the body must be the sole source of the odour. For him, only from there can molecules from the odour emanate. Not from vestiges left by the body. That's why for Insane decomposition can only be gaseous.

And if it is, then once the body is removed we are left only with floating molecules in the air on site. And these go with the wind. One moment they could be in the living-room the next in the bathroom, simply depending on the air currents inside the apartment.

This is what he said to push this idea:

“I can understand that some non-scientists struggle with the concept that molecules can be present in a gaseous state and that they can remain there for a long time and that a dog can alert to their presence even when there are no liquid or solid remains present, but that is no excuse for being ill informed yet blogging as if you knew what you were talking about, complete with utterly false and misleading information.”


“This is your basic problem. a complete lack of understanding. How do you think spray air fresheners  work? They work because they persist for ages in the air. Dogs have way more receptors than us and can detect the presence of olfactory substances at much lower concentrations than humans.”

We are introduced to the concept of the lingering airborne molecule. A molecule that will remain afloat for ages, waiting, waiting and waiting. And going with the wind wherever the wind takes it.

Note that it cannot be a clinging molecule. If it adheres – Martin Grime wrong again according to Insane – then it won’t fly and it needs to fly to go up Eddie’s nose (cadaver dog).

The “Insane molecules” must float endlessly.

A piece of advice to our readers buying a new house. Please think carefully before you choose the scent of the first air freshener you buy. It will accompany you every single day in that house. If the reader decides to buy cinnamon and then changes to lavender, the reader is not changing anything but simply creating a mixture of cinnamon-lavender. The previous air freshener, says Insane, won’t go away. Each new chosen scent is not a new one but only the piling up of a scent from all previous ones. The reader doesn’t like the scent chosen? Afraid the only solution is to sell the house.

11. Uncertain locations

Finally Insane gets to the point:

“You still don't get it, (censored)

The whole point, Textusa, you (censored), is that airborne contamination could account for all the alerts.”


“No such thing as ''Cadaver Compound'' Please don't use it again.  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.”


“No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. The locations are very much secondary. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.”

So what Insane really wants to get across to all of us is this: sure Eddie (cadaver dog) did mark the scent of Maddie’s corpse but that in no way means the body was ever behind the couch or in the closet. It means only that the airborne molecules of the scent were there. The body could have been somewhere else in the apartment. Or not even in apartment if molecules flew in.

We are encountering playful molecules.

They exited the body and then decided to play hide and seek in the apartment. Half went to hide behind the couch the other half in the closet.

The importance of this?

The idea behind it is to use forensics to validate the burglar thesis.

Burglar came, killed Maddie and while he didn’t know what to do with the body it developed a gaseous mixture which released molecules into the air and which gently floated all the way behind the couch and parents’ bedroom closet. And there they remained for almost three months, at least. For all we know, they are still there. Like Insane's air fresheners they won't go away.

Insane tries to push this absurd theory of floating molecules forward and this post is about avoiding having SY even try. 

12. A few minor questions

Insane, with this theory, is absolutely certain about Eddie’s (cadaver dog) accuracy:

“No-one ever said Eddie was not reliable. He was, You're not”


“Where have I ever indicated that Eddie's alerts were false? Nowhere. You can park your smear campaign  at the door, (censored).”

Plus, he certainly thinks there is no mistake that it is human cadaver odour:

“Is that really where you were going with that? Who has suggested there was a decomposing pig, for (censored)?”

So if Eddie (cadaver dog) marked Maddie’s body, a few questions for Insane:

What can be the reason a person stays inside an apartment with the dead body of a totally strange child for the time it takes to develop the odour in such quantities that when spread out still has enough concentration to be detected in 2 locations inside apartment?

Hope now readers understand why Insane falsely reduced post mortem to 10 minutes in the carpet square experiment.

In that time, what were the parents doing? They say they were checking on the children regularly, so are they lying?

If only gas and only airborne contamination why did the scent resist the passing of guests who rented the apartment? All the goings in and goings out, openings and closings of doors and windows. We know there is one guest, a Kate McCann, who says that apartment was quite drafty with her infamous “whoosh klunk”.

If only gas and only airborne contamination why did the scent resist the cleaning done between guests? We're certain the apartment was ventilated on those occasions. 

If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there.

If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on McCann clothing?

If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the cuddly cat?

If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the key FOB?

If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the Scenic?

Maybe the scent was chasing the McCanns around town for weeks. Besides being playful these molecules seem to have been stalkers. Pesky molecules.

13. And what about Keela (blood dog)?

Let’s imagine Insane is absolutely right. Let’s abandon logic momentarily so we can withdraw from this episode what really matters, and that is Keela (blood dog).

According to Insane Eddie clearly marked the vestiges that Maddie’s body had been inside the apartment but it’s unclear to conclude exactly where.

By the way we don’t think Insane coordinated with anyone before recognising a dead Maddie inside the apartment, because it’s a pretty damning situation for the McCanns any way one looks at it.

About determining the location where the body was Insane can rest assured that there’s a way, or to be more precise, a dog. A dog called Keela (blood dog).

Keela the blood dog.

If Insane trusts Eddie’s (cadaver dog) olfactory capabilities then he MUST trust Keela’s (blood dog).

Keela (blood dog) pinpointed the existence of blood in the exact same location as “Eddie’s molecules” decided to go play: behind the couch in the living room.

We would say that having odour of Maddie’s body and of blood in the same location we can reasonably conclude that the body was there as there is evidence that supports it and because previous criminal experiences do indicate to that certain outcome and that outcome being that Maddie’s body was behind the couch.

We have said this before but today it’s Insane.

Knowing today that Insane trusts wholeheartedly in Eddie (cadaver dog) and Keela (blood dog) we find it really hard to understand the reason he offered so much resistance about the stains behind the couch being blood, which evidently, they are.

And all that he said about DNA being transported by jam seems now quite unnecessary and it would have saved him some embarrassment.

It’s quite interesting to have seen that when we said “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.” in our post “Cadaverine compound”, Insane reacts with the following:

“Fairytale rubbish? Hardly an appropriate way to describe John Lowe”

We were not talking about John Lowe. When we said “fairytale rubbish” we were talking about Insane’s antics. But it was interesting to see how Insane linked John Lowe to the expression. Insane is the one associating him with it, not us.

13. Conclusion

Insane says he believes (and has for a long time) that Maddie is dead.

This means he also realises that in 2 countries, the police, the mainstream media, the governments have completely ignored the following:

- No confirmed sightings of a missing child in 8 years;

- That statistics predict a high probability that she is dead;

- The fact that the cadaver dog alerts to the last place she was seen.

These three factors were what Insane based his conclusions on so far, so what is reasonable to conclude is either because the evidence supports it or because previous experience indicates a certain outcome.

That outcome being that Maddie is dead.

That means the police forces, the mainstream media and the governments of 2 countries have decided to play along with the lying parents and friends (if Maddie was dead inside apartment then Insane agrees McCanns and friends are lying) and to waste public funds in abundance.

We are either encountering a cover-up or a collective incompetence beyond words. Which is it, Insane?


  1. The fact that you are worthy of a dedicated Insane speaks clearly - Team Mc Cann in it's widest sense have sought to place Insane here. It 's why we come here - it matters to them..
    carry on carrying on

  2. Another amazing piece, Textusa, if not genius. You've nailed it once again. It makes perfect sense that Insane is trying to push the ridiculous burglar theory. Well done!

  3. The more complex the substance, the more specific its odour is, the more accurate Eddie was.

  4. An online debate.
    Except in this one, only one team is going to walk off the stage.
    The other will be led off.

  5. A fine piece Textusa - a solid reminder that the air of propaganda implicitly has a source that can be sniffed too.


  6. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646163802184537&set=gm.917000191695416&type=1&theater

    CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th april 2007

    1. Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 03:01:00,

      Thank you for the link.

      One thing we don't think is that our foes are stupid. It would be quite stupid for CEOP to put up Maddie as missing child as of April 30 and then go on defending she was abducted 3 days later.

      There has to be a technical explanation. If there isn't one, all we can see is it to be bait for conspiracy theories and if it is, then some seem to be biting it.

      Meanwhile, we think Nikki Plummer may have a reason:

    2. Interesting, but I suspect a technical glitch. If you look at the URLs for both April 30th and May 13th they are the same, and containing the same date stamp (in the URL) as 20070513. So it would appear that that's the page as archived on May 13th on both occasions...

      Great post by the way.

    3. The debate is running on and on as to the validity of the discovery of the file apparently dated 30th April 2007. I must admit there are some compelling arguments for it's validity and I have certainly been rather sucked into believing it may have existed on 30th April. But I am ever conscious that, as Textusa says - it would have been stupid of CEOP - and also that why was it only discovered now? Nothing is ever what it first appears to be....

  7. Textusa - brilliant I now understand your tribute to Eddie and Keela at the beginning of the these posts. They really are the Heroes in this case it's no wonder they send GmC crazy. What shocks me is the way him and TM have been allowed to attempt to discredit these fine animals. I say attempt because they never could discredit them. Specially trained dogs have protected our borders, apprehended criminals, located drugs which where on route to our children and the powers in the uk have be stood by and let a jumped up pair of nobody’s attempt to discredit them. Dog trainers and handlers across the world must be well beyond outrage at this stage. Thank god for you and your team who have given so much time to explain the complexity of such matters.

    I am also always very interested in how you are portrayed on other parts of the internet. You are quite right that big egos have got in the way of the search for the truth in this case as it does in trying to complete tasks in all walks of life. I wouldn't blame some of your supporters for for rather sheepishly trying to defend the S theory. When I discovered your blog about 3 years ago now ( time flys in the maddie mystery world) I almost left it when I read your theory on the front page. It does sound a bit ridiculous when it's first presented to you. However as you present your evidence it suddenly becomes a "of course thats it" moment. I don't do forums, yours is the only blog I comment on but I do lurk as forum members call it and I can understand why your supporters are a bit sheepish. I do the same when I discuss the case at home. Very few people I know have an interest in the case ( or will confess to it) so they likely haven't read your blog, S is therefore naturally met with laughter and ridicule. It's got now that I say to people unless you have studied Textusa's blog I can't really discuss the case in any depth with you.

    One thing I would like to add about the small corners of the internet. After finding your blog I understood a lot of what was being said on other blogs and forums. Quite often I found that blogs suddenly changed direction on something or formed an opinion that I couldn't see where they were coming from. I realised then that they were reading your theory, your evidence and your analysis and presenting them as their own. Or out of the blue they were suddenly presenting something as nonsense without referencing you and without providing an analysis of why it was nonsense. For example that the smiths met gmc carrying a live child. That was just nonsense. No analysis debunking your analysis....just nonsense. And if I hear Occam razor being quoted in relation to this case again.......that couldn't have happened because of Occam razor I will have to do a kmc on the steps of Lisbon court house. Again no simple explanation of happening just that it is simple read Occam razor

    1. I love what you have written. And I think what you said : " very few people I know have an interest in the case ( or will confess to it) so they likely haven't read your blog" then there is nothing to say. Ilove the sisters because they taught me to not jump after every morsel thrown at me, no matter how tasty it is. Still to this day, I am astounded at their absolute ability to just meet things head on without falling into hyperbole. An absolute blessing and I am so pleased they cut their holiday short.

    2. "For example that the smiths met gmc carrying a live child. That was just nonsense. "
      I thought Textusa said exactly that? That he was carrying a decoy child?

    3. Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 20:16:00,

      You are right.


      Smithman, in our opinion Gerry McCann, was carrying a live but sedated child. We believe it to have been Jane Tanner's daughter.

    4. Just for the record when I said "for example that the smiths met gmc carrying a live child. That was just nonsense" I know that is Textusas opinion and she provides an excellent analysis of why she came to that opinion of which I agree with. "That was just nonsense" was referring to what other bloggers said in response without an analysis debunking textusa's analysis. Clear as mud eh. Sorry for the confusion.

  8. Insane plays dirty; attempts to bulldoze through his arguments. You have demolished him by standing still. Another devastating post, Text, thank you. Horrible and ugly to think of the efforts that are made to cover up the obvious truths as to what happened Maddie mcCann.

  9. My word - 'Insane' has had his red pen out, I see. How quick was that? There are so many 'good' lines it's hard to know where to begin - but one stood out - just another insult out of many: 'There you go with that old ''words in the mouth'' business. It's the sign of someone extremely ill-bred.' Now, why do I find that so hilarious, coming from 'Insane' - perhaps it's the obvious irony, or the lack of self-awareness? Apart from that, 'Insane' does a very, very poor job of defending his position. But he's certainly frothing at the mouth.

  10. Hi textusa,
    Another good post Insane will be pleased?
    Is Insane a family member,relative of the missing girl Madeleine?
    As part of this post you mention the possible demise of Madeleine McCann.
    I have posted about the ongoing case of "Operation Grange" and Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, who has mentioned the Death, err missing girl Madeleine McCann being stolen/Abducted from apartment 5a Ocean Club complex 3 May 2007?
    Do you still stand by the previous posts of Non-Whitewash finding by UK Metropolitan Police Force regard to Operation Grange!?

  11. Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 16:53:00,

    Yes, we continue to be absolutely convinced there will be no whitewash. Not because it's not desired by them, it simply isn't possible.

    We continue to see only one of 2 outcomes: archival or truth.

    There has to be one credible Pandora's Box or none. A tailored to fit one is not possible.

    Like we said, it wasn't possible since September 2007 when they first tried to pin things on the McCanns only. Then, they discovered what they discovered in 2011 (discovery they have been living with since) and that it's not possible.

    For them, it was a huge mistake to have opened the review. We thank them for that mistake.

  12. Why is the wikipedia entry for the 'Disappearance of Madeleine Mccann' claiming that the dog's evidence is deemed unreliable in some way? Someone has added this: "According to the Sunday Times, it seems apparent from a video released by the Ministério Público that the handler was directing the dogs to particular spots inside the apartment and to the McCanns' car.[94] The McCanns' lawyer said that, if there was indeed a smell of corpses on Kate's clothes, it might have been caused by her contact with the deceased as a family doctor.[95]"

    1. Perhaps because wikipedia entries can be written by anyone. Even a Mccann or a Clarence?

  13. I'm sorry textusa but I have to disagree with you regarding the whitewash.The Scotland Yard investigation has been ongoing for four years .They have been pointing the finger at numerous suspects during this time.They cannot be looking for the truth,as they would have acted on the alerts of the dogs at the beginning.I can only conclude that they are ignoring this evidence and have an alternative remit.You say it's "simply not possible" ,and yet for decades child abusers have been protected by the establishment and others agencies for decades in the UK.

    1. Anonymous 17 Jun 2015, 23:34:00,

      Disagreements are fully respected.

      We have explained that SY have tried, really tried hard to whitewash. To get a patsy or even to try to keep things only to the McCanns and other T7 (for us that is as much whitewashing as finding any other patsy). They tried but have failed as we knew form the outset they would.

      We say that to attempt any other closure other than the truth is not only not feasible as it is foolish.

      The only other option is archival. That remains open.

      You disagree, we respect that.

    2. Archival seems the most likely : SY tried hard but couldn't find neither Madeleine nor her abductor. Of course OG is reopenable.
      SY'll have to avoid the eventual following question : why not investigate now the other possible crimes listed by the MP ? They'll answer there's no evidence or not enough and no money for that.

    3. Anne, first of all thank you so much for all your translations for us :)

      As regards archival, if the case is archived again, then the Portugese police files will be released to the public again, and for that reason alone I don't believe archival is an option, not because the PJ will have a problem with that, but because SY can't risk it.

      If only SY was involved in the case then they would be free to shelve, whitewash or whatever and all the official files would be private and they could basically tell us whatever they want.

      But not with the PJ involved, they will release their files if the case is archived and everything from the current investigation will become public.


    4. Nuala, I think that this time access to the files will only be in Portimao as it is the norm.
      In July 2008, the MCs requested the files for going on their search. The MP could hardly release the files only to them. This time I doubt that the MCs will request the files...
      They had to insist on a review because innocent parents would have done that.
      They likely will not insist that the homicide/concealment hypothesis is reviewed...
      Though, in fact, were they doing that, many would start wondering whether they were really involved.

    5. I think Anne was right to say if SY say no evidence of abduction, then question will be asked - why not investigate PJ theory of parents' involvement - as logical progression?

    6. But they certainly will never say that there is no evidence of abduction, not even suggest that they couldn't find any. They'll say that in spite of having followed many, many leads, they unfortunately couldn't find out what happened to Madeleine and whether she's alive or dead. They'll try to avoid the word "abduction" at all costs, precisely not to answer any question about it. I seem to remember that Redwood carefully announced that they wouldn't give an account of what had been done. In any case they'll use the umbrella of the MP, arguing that the Portuguese have the sovereignty on this case. And in fact it belongs to the MP to add to their so-called AG report a note indicating that the abduction is the most likely although no evidence was found. I don't think that the review, the investigation and the conclusion of the SY will be mentioned, at least I hope not.

    7. Anne if the files are released in Portimao, we will not be depending on a request from the Mcs, in the internet information age and with good people likeyourself translating the files they will be out there. Why do you think the PJ investigation was so good. The PJ knew the scrutiny they were under the UK  didn't. It came as a great shock to the powers that be in the UK that the original files were released and that will serve as a great lesson to OG. Most of what we know now we know because the UK were in the dark regarding the release of the files. They allowed things into the files and that won't happen this time around. If the case is archived whatever OG report to us will match the PJ files and only an eejit now will think that the PJ files will conclude that there was a lone/gang of abductors. I don't know if we will ever know the full truth regarding the BH guests because the power struggle has been at the UK side so it's unlikely it will make it into the files. I am confident that the mccs and Tapas 7 are toast and I think for the majority of the UK and Portuguese that will be sufficient

    8. The MP couldn't release the files to the private "search for Madeleine" and force the public to study them in Portimão, that would have been anti-democratic. I guess releasing the files, which took the British by surprise, was also a sort of affirmation of the AG (when I requested your presence at a reconstitution, you rejected it, now please submit yourselves to my decision to let the public read the files).
      I think that both British and Portuguese authorities have no doubt about the involvement of the MCs. But, as in the Ramsey case, they have no evidence to discriminate between them and formulate a specific charge against each of these two individuals. Their strength is precisely there, symbolised by KMC's stiff arm holding GMC's hand in front, only in front of cameras.
      As everybody is convinced death was accidental, as there's no evidence it wasn't so, there is no murderer, society isn't at risk.
      Time has come to draw some lesson out of this saga. And forget.

    9. Anne you are so right about the arm holding. I just watched one of the videos today and they couldn't be more obvious if they put up a out of bounds sign up. I hope you are not right and there is justice for MM and GA but regardless of the outcomes the search for justice and the fight for freedom of speech owes you a great debt

    10. Anne & Anon,

      It was my understanding that in Portugal the police file are always released to the public when a case is archived, but it seems from what you've said that's not the case, which is a disappointment.

      So would I be correct in gathering from what's been said here that someone has to request release for it to happen?

      If so, who is able to do that?

      Thank you :)


    11. Nuala, you're right that members of the public, with some kind of justification, may have access to criminal files when a case is shelved, but I said nothing else... Before DVD existed, you had to visit the archival of the MP. In the MC case the files were digitized which turned them available on a simple click. I think it was the first time, usually only historians are interested in reading PJ files. In this case the spin doctor Mitchell requested the files in a nutshell in order to send his sleuths on Madeleine's track, that how the DVD was made.

    12. Anne, thank you for that information :)


  14. Kate putting her pedalling foot in her mouth:


    "I know it won't help Maddie"

    Why, you know she's dead?

    1. WOW! Yes, she says she knows that "it" won't help Madeleine, but she did it for other missing children and their families!!! Why can "it" help other children, but not Madeleine...? Care to elaborate on that, Kate:::?

  15. Thinking about the comments here: - SY having been so desperate to try and find a whitewash solution for this case would seem to imply that they will opt for the archival solution rather than allowing the truth to emerge. What does Textusa think about the consequences of an archival solution? To archive the case in effect means that SY have failed and spent millions on a failed operation. But, it would seem that failure is better than allowing the truth to emerge? The Op Grange was deliberately turned from review into investigation (I think)? If so, was that another mistake? I'm just trying to understand which option they are likely to go for - truth or archival and the pros and cons of either.

    1. OG was highly justified by "the good chance" according to the MCs that Madeleine was alive and abduction was the only scenario in which this was possible. The HO wouldn't have spent that money and moreover police officers' work only to find a body.
      The MCs must know by now that they will not get the whitewash they wish, so they multiply the opportunities to brush their image.

  16. i love your page , and the reports are totally fascinating, i have learnt a lot. however i do have a few comments or better questions....why use tanners daughter when gm could have used amelie? already sedated, easier to carry, blonde,and wore maddies pygamas according to kates mother..so not a great difference in size. So far as I know the Smiths just said a child, blonde and in pyjamas. The idea that she was maddie and therefore 4yrs came later by association. Then what happened. Did gm just turn around and go back and put amelie back in bed? Was there time?

    1. reply to post Anon,14.36 substitute child used, if textusa is correct JT's daughter, it was possible for JT to collect her daughter 21.25 and hand over to GMc(JW with pram, did JW take Madeleine?), abductor then seen by Smith family 22.00, GMc then hands (JT's Daughter) back to RO, who was minding his sick child from 21.30 until alarm raised after 22.00 hrs?
      Both JW and RO never took part in search for Madeleine,3/4 May 2007 according to PJ statements.

  17. The very fact that this has been going on for 4 years makes me certain that this case is not a whitewash and will not be archived in manner that people are suggesting i.e. that it was a simple adduction and they have not been able to find the perpetrator. A timescale of 4 years will probably have seen changes in personnel at every decision making level within the investigation, one very public one is the change in SIO from Redwood to Hall (How could Andy Redwood, assuming he is corrupt which I don’t for one minute think he is, take the risk that Nicola Hall was also corrupt and would not expose him). The budget holder is likely to have changed; in that timescale. (Is the budget holder corrupt, is he also into taking risks that somebody following on from him is corrupt). Was DC so corrupt that he risked had he lost the last election that another PM would not have exposed them. I know people like to quote past whitewashes/cover-ups but that’s exactly why a high profile investigation like this wouldn’t possibly go down that line. A lot of people commenting on this case need to take a look at what their saying and the high moral ground they take over people involved in this investigation. Ordinary men and women who they know nothing about, people who live ordinary lives, respect their neighbours and work hard for their family. They are not robots who following orders and who can desecrate a child’s memory because there is a big pension at the end of it all. People who are claiming that there are so many people in 1 investigation who could do need to ask themselves could they or any of their family live with that. My opinion for what is worth is that there may be an archiving of the investigation simply because there may not be enough evidence to bring it to court. If that’s the case I think the Public will be made aware of the thinking behind it, but considering budgets have continued to be approved for over 4 years now I am confident that the evidence needed will be found.

    1. Anon 15.26
      It would seem you are putting an extreme amount of faith into the practices of investigation by the UK Police force?
      The Assistant Police Commander of Leicsetershire Police,made a statement that did not clear the couple of involvement of a crime!
      I would suggest you look at the amount of malpractice associated to the Metropolitan Police unit, killings of Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987, Stephen Lawrence and undercover Police being used against them?
      Child Abuse cover up throughout the UK for over Forty Years!?

    2. We have referred to Daniel in previous posts:

      - National Habits II (http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/03/national-habits-ii.html)

      - Looking at the Future Today (http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/03/looking-at-future-today.html)

      It's because of these scandals we believe SY can't afford to become the next one in years to come. Not much can remain hidden forever.

    3. I have just read you post with regard to the brutal killing of Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987. did you notice the DCI one Hamish Campbell and the costs of the trail collapsing £50 Million Pounds? Persons of interest involved with the Government,Prime Minister David Cameron former PR Andrew Coulson, MSM News of the World owned by Rupert Murdoch, Whose CEO Rebecca Brooks got a review of the case for the McCanns, who had paid over £425,000.00 libel from NoTW to Carter Ruck for McCanns.
      Fragrant Rebeka paid the McCanns over 1/2 Million to serialise kates book, who had a tex message from DC LOL?
      What a murky bunch?

    4. i hear and respect what your are saying 19/6 13:48 i come from a community which have suffered greatly malpratice investigations by uk police forces. I just think that the later high profile exposure of these and others like Daniel Morgan will i hope help prevent them in the future

  18. Trying to get my head round what Insane is implying.
    Cadaver odour is a gas. M body did not need to be in direct contact with any of places/items alerted to by dog?
    As illustrated by carpet squares experiment according to Insane.
    If M died in apartment and he accepts dog alerts, but believes tapas dining story, then logically, a burglar/ abductor must have killed M and taken her - without her body making contact with alert areas? The cadaver odour was a gas that floated to different areas and remained there in apartment and garden for 2 months, (in spite of other people renting in the meantime?) The gas remained in the apartment but also in the garden area without dissipating and despite the body being removed so swiftly, it had time to produce an odour?
    The parents had nothing to do with M's death and the car alert, presumably, was just secondary contamination of some description?
    What about the blood dog alerts? Just blood of a living person which happened to be in the some places the cadaver dog alerted to? That marks on the wall which produced DNA profiles were not blood or blood splatters, but were another bodily substance.
    The FSS according to him, were correct in their findings where nothing was found to implicate the parents.
    Or have I got him wrong as I'm not a scientist and could be stupid?

    1. Anonymous 19 Jun 2015, 10:33:00,

      We hope we're sitting down waiting for an answer from Insane. It seems he's now running away from the dogs. In this case, literally.

    2. Censored comment received from Insane:

      "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Playful molecules":

      What are you whining about now, you (censored)?

      I see you have an 'anon' who's struggling to keep up, so allow me.

      No, a body does not have to have been in direct contact with a surface in order for a dog to alert.

      Your statement....

      ''If M died in apartment and he accepts dog alerts, but believes tapas dining story, then logically, a burglar/ abductor must have killed M and taken her - without her body making contact with alert areas? ''

      .....should not contain the word ''logically'' because logic plays no part in that little bit of escapism.

      ''Cadaver odour'' has been shown in studies to persist for at least a year in a similar situation, so two months is certainly not infeasible.

      I already covered the garden area I suggest you try reading it again.

      I said the alert in the car was probably secondary contamination and that I did not believe her body had ever been transported in it, yes. Is there a bit of that you still don't understand?

      There were no blood splatters, no blood was confirmed in the apartment at all. Therefore it is not possible to confirm the source of the blood dog alerts. Stop me if I am going too fast for you.

      I have read the FSS report and all the interim communications and I can't find any fault with it. The conclusion of the FSS was not ''nothing was found to implicate the parents''. They were tasked with looking for evidence of what happened to Madeleine and who was responsible. The paucity of the material recovered did not allow for any conclusions which were of particular value to the investigation.

      Now - what don't you understand?

      Enjoying that holiday, Textusa?

      Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 25 Jun 2015, 00:30:00 "

    3. To Insane.
      can you confirm that a human soul had been within 5a Ocean Club apartments and if it was not Madeleine, who died in or was placed in that area to "create the Odours"?
      Fact, 15 out of 19 indicators with Four unobtainable indicators states a match of nearly 80% to the DNA given by the parents of Madeleine from her pillow case, allegedly from the home she lived in the UK, so that gives a 1 in 5 indicator that the DNA did not belong to Madeleine!?
      You admit "Secondary contamination in the car"So who contaminated the "Odours to the vehicle if it was not Madeleine?
      If Madeleine has passed away, why was the Find Madeleine fund set up by Legal Experts from the UK?
      Hope you can provide answers Insane or Not Textusa.

    4. Thank you Not Textusa, I'm struggling anon.

      Actually it was nearly 3 months before Grime.
      You don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
      I can't remember what you wrote about the garden.
      What was found in apt is referred to as cellular material. It produced DNA. It could have been white blood cells. If not, what was it? Why did Keela alert? To what did Keela alert to?
      You say you believe she probably died on May 3rd in apartment.
      So you're implying an accident.
      If it was an accident, her body would have made direct contact with the floor?
      You don't confirm that it was likely a burglar took her - so who did?
      Surely there are only 3 possible scenarios which account for death in apartment?
      - A burglar/ abductor killed her, by accident or deliberately.
      - Parent/s involved in incident.
      - Accident when parents absent.

      If an burglar/ abductor took her alive, there can't be cadaver odour.

    5. Anonymous 25 Jun 2015, 09:13:00,

      For your information:

      To the following sentence in our post "Playful molecules" :

      "If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there."

      Insane responded with this:

      "Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it's impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change"

      As far as we know it is all he has said up to now about Eddie's marking in the backyard.

    6. Sorry, struggling anon again.

      Not Textusa, you don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
      If it was in soil, maybe, as the information I read about chemical composition of cadaverine mentioned gas retained within soil and clay - but I'm sure without a source to emanate from, gas can't persist that long.
      The study I read seems to show a half life of 6 hours:

      Could you provide a ref for a year for gas to linger? Other than in soil.

    7. Smells disappear:
      As common sense tells us
      Cadaver odour without its source - either a body or material contaminated by a body - can only last for a limited time in air .Not a year.
      Unless Insane can prove otherwise with proper refs.

    8. Not Textusa, sorry, I told you I may be stupid, but I think I now understand some of this..
      M died on May 3rd but not in 5a.
      Gas odour in garden was old bones
      (this is a primary source needed to create the gas, like a cadaver would?)
      The gas stayed in the garden for nearly 3 months.
      The car contained no evidence of Ms body being there. Key fob was secondary contamination as was car boot
      Now here is me being stupid maybe?
      Gas wafted in from the garden and pooled in the cupboard, contaminating clothing and cuddlecat second-hand.

      Only thing I'm still not clear about is how the car was contaminated?
      What was in the car which made Eddie bark so loudly?

    9. We have received Insane's answer. As expected it had to be censored:

      Insane: The Textusa (censored) have been busy!
      I am going to answer these questions over here, rather than have that (censored) censoring them every five minutes.
      So anyway, an (censored) writes:

      Quote from the blog:
      To Insane
      can you confirm that a human soul had been within 5a Ocean Club apartments
      Insane’s response:
      Human 'soul'?
      I don't believe there is a test for detecting 'souls'. Perhaps you know of one?

      Quote from the blog:
      and if it was not Madeleine, who died in or was placed in that area to "create the Odours"?
      Insane’s response:
      How the (censored) do I know? What is it with you people that you think you are entitled to demand answers to the unanswerable?

      Quote from the blog:
      Fact, 15 out of 19 indicators with Four unobtainable indicators states a match of nearly 80% to the DNA given by the parents of Madeleine from her pillow case, allegedly from the home she lived in the UK, so that gives a 1 in 5 indicator that the DNA did not belong to Madeleine!?
      Insane’s response:
      All of that is complete (censored). Firstly, what is your issue with the pillowcase, or are we now all supposed to believe an FSS scientist and a police officer faked that too?
      Secondly, this 15 of 19 statistic that noted Canadian (censored) tries to bamboozle you with is completely fraudulent. The sample yielded 37 markers from at least three different individuals, 15 of which matched markers in Madeleine's profile, as one would expect in a sample procured from a vehicle used by both her parents - yes, the sample came from the car, not the apartment. The 1 in 5 statistic is completely meaningless and bogus

      Quote from the blog:
      You admit "Secondary contamination in the car"So who contaminated the "Odours to the vehicle if it was not Madeleine?
      Insane’s response:
      I suggested secondary contamination. There is no ''admitting'' to be had. Secondary contamination means by something other than the deceased, you dingbat. The dogs alerted to items such as clothing and the cuddlecat toy. They were carried in the car. QED secondary contamination. It's not difficult.

      Quote from the blog:
      If Madeleine has passed away, why was the Find Madeleine fund set up by Legal Experts from the UK?
      Insane’s response:
      How the (censored) should I know?

      Quote from the blog:
      Hope you can provide answers Insane or Not Textusa.
      Insane’s response:
      Probably not the ones your little heart desired, but that's just tough.


    10. (cont.)

      Quote from the blog:
      Anonymous 25 Jun 2015, 09:13:00
      Thank you Not Textusa, I'm struggling anon.
      Insane’s response:
      Well, it's good that you can admit it. I feel we're making progress

      Quote from the blog:
      Actually it was nearly 3 months before Grime.
      Insane’s response:

      Quote from the blog:
      You don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
      Insane’s response:
      No I don't. What's the point - you won't read it

      Quote from the blog:
      I can't remember what you wrote about the garden.
      Insane’s response:

      Quote from the blog:
      What was found in apt is referred to as cellular material. It produced DNA. It could have been white blood cells. If not, what was it?
      Insane’s response:
      If you had read the files, specifically John Lowe's report, you would know that LCN DNA profiling is unable to answer that question. So why the (censored) are you asking me?

      Quote from the blog:
      Why did Keela alert? To what did Keela alert to?
      Insane’s response:
      Keela is trained to alert to blood. We don't know what Keela alerted to as no confirmed blood was found in the apartment

      Quote from the blog:
      You say you believe she probably died on May 3rd in apartment.
      Insane’s response:

      Quote from the blog:
      So you're implying an accident.
      Insane’s response:
      I'm implying nothing

      Quote from the blog:
      If it was an accident, her body would have made direct contact with the floor?
      Insane’s response:
      Are you asking me or telling me?

      Quote from the blog:
      You don't confirm that it was likely a burglar took her - so who did?
      Insane’s response:
      How the (censored) should I know? Do you know?

      Quote from the blog:
      Surely there are only 3 possible scenarios which account for death in apartment?
      Insane’s response:
      Oh really?

      Quote from the blog:
      - A burglar/ abductor killed her, by accident or deliberately.
      - Parent/s involved in incident.
      - Accident when parents absent.
      Insane’s response:
      If you say so

      Quote from the blog:
      If an burglar/ abductor took her alive, there can't be cadaver odour.
      Insane’s response:
      Well done, Sherlock

      Quote from the blog:
      Anonymous 25 Jun 2015, 09:53:00
      Sorry, struggling anon again.
      Insane’s response:
      Ah. Still-struggling anon.

      Quote from the blog:
      Not Textusa, you don't quote study where cadaver gas persists for a year.
      Insane’s response:
      You said that last time

      Quote from the blog:
      If it was in soil, maybe, as the information I read about chemical composition of cadaverine mentioned gas retained within soil and clay - but I'm sure without a source to emanate from, gas can't persist that long.
      Insane’s response:
      Oh well if you're sure, why are you asking me?

      Quote from the blog:
      The study I read seems to show a half life of 6 hours:
      Insane’s response:
      Predicted. And how is it broken down? And do you know what that actually means?

      Quote from the blog:
      Insane’s response:
      Yeah - that's not a study, dear

      Quote from the blog:
      Could you provide a ref for a year for gas to linger? Other than in soil.
      Insane’s response:
      No I can provide a study where dogs have signalled odour after a year, but I won't bother because you won't read it. If you had read the carpet squares study by Oesterhelweg et al you would know that study already answers the question for the time period we are dealing with here.


    11. (cont.)

      Quote from the blog:
      Anonymous 25 Jun 2015, 11:36:00
      Smells disappear:
      As common sense tells us
      Insane’s response:
      Yes, smells dissipate.
      You do realise that answer reinforces what I am saying, don't you?

      Quote from the blog:
      Cadaver odour without its source - either a body or material contaminated by a body - can only last for a limited time in air .Not a year.
      Insane’s response:
      Ah - obviously not. Okay dear, where does he say anything about a year, or for that matter, a dog?

      Quote from the blog:
      Unless Insane can prove otherwise with proper refs.
      Insane’s response:
      Otherwise than what - your guesswork?

      Quote from the blog:
      Anonymous 25 Jun 2015, 12:21:00
      Not Textusa, sorry, I told you I may be stupid, but I think I now understand some of this..
      Insane’s response:
      Really? And that's without waiting for, or reading, any of my replies. Remarkable.....

      Quote from the blog:
      M died on May 3rd but not in 5a.
      Insane’s response:
      Oh yes? How do you work that out?

      Quote from the blog:
      Gas odour in garden was old bones
      Insane’s response:

      Quote from the blog:
      (this is a primary source needed to create the gas, like a cadaver would?)
      Insane’s response:
      Keep going....

      Quote from the blog:
      The gas stayed in the garden for nearly 3 months.
      Insane’s response:
      Wouldn't need to if it was a primary source, would it? Anyway, keep going.....

      Quote from the blog:
      The car contained no evidence of Ms body being there. Key fob was secondary contamination as was car boot
      Insane’s response:

      Quote from the blog:
      Now here is me being stupid maybe?
      Insane’s response:
      Oh don't sell yourself short. Probably.

      Quote from the blog:
      Gas wafted in from the garden and pooled in the cupboard, contaminating clothing and cuddlecat second-hand.
      Insane’s response:
      No - who suggested that?

      Quote from the blog:
      Only thing I'm still not clear about is how the car was contaminated?
      Insane’s response:
      Secondary contamination, dear. Do try to keep up.

      Quote from the blog:
      What was in the car which made Eddie bark so loudly?
      Insane’s response:
      Secondary contamination of cadaver odour, potentially. See, you got there, eventually.
      Any more?

    12. Evidently one cannot reason with a McCann supporter. If one could, there would be none.

      As can be seen Insane considers his word to be gospel and they are so sacred that he refuses to share his sources with us.

      Henceforth, if Insane says that birds land on their backs then birds do land on their backs. No discussion. He said it, so it is so. Gospel is his word.

      Any bird seen landing belly down shall be shot on site for being a disruptor and for just doing that on purpose to contradict Insane.

    13. Please note another "toileting spots" moment by Insane:

      "Quote from the blog:
      To Insane
      can you confirm that a human soul had been within 5a Ocean Club apartments
      Insane’s response:
      Human 'soul'?
      I don't believe there is a test for detecting 'souls'. Perhaps you know of one?"

      The human soul being referred to by Anonymous and joked about by Insane is simply Maddie as everyone, including him, knows.

    14. I loved the bones in the backyard!
      If Luz was so riddled with human bones then why didn't we see the EVRD dog used in July 2014 bark its head off??

    15. Insane/Not Textusa is one ugly, vulgar human being. 'Something pathological in the way he attacks with such viciousness - obviously feeling that he's met his match. Strange words coming from a so-called 'scientist'...

    16. someone should let insane know that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.....dear !

  19. Cyprus has complained.


    Something we expected Portugal to have done in 2007/2008 but didn't.

    1. "The Police responded rapidly to complaints made by British nationals that an
      unknown man was taking pictures and approaching children at the hotel grounds.
      The individual, a 19 year old foreign national, was taken into custody for questioning.
      He has been living in Cyprus with his parents for the past few years and has no police
      record. His mobile phone, personal computer and home were thoroughly searched by
      the Police and nothing incriminating or suspicious was found. "

      Only one man! I wonder what happened to the romenian nationals dressed as resort staff...?! Also "wooshed"! And not even the parents of the "targeted" children corroborate the british rags tales!

      Well done, Cyprus government!

  20. http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGA

    Cyprus story seems to have given the fund a big boost.
    It's an amazing amount. Someone just gave £200:

    Not being conned
    15 hours ago
    However much the McCanns’ spin machine try to con the public into believing that Madeleine was “abducted” the more the public will go against them and fight, we’re all tired of their BS. The media have really plumbed the deaths of depravity with the latest spin from TM (to cover up the woeful loss of donations for MP and the fact that GA put in his in appeal on Monday). Hasn’t Portugal suffered enough with these two self centred, selfish parents not giving a damn what damage they have caused to the Portuguese tourist industry for the past 8 years now it’s the turn of Cyprus just so that the McCanns can carry on with their fairy tale “abduction”. If these idiotic stories hadn’t been printed I wouldn’t have been moved to donate this money, but I think 8 years is enough to put up with all this McCann cr*p. Good luck GA, we're all on your side.

    1. Anonymous20 Jun 2015, 07:59:00

      Thank you for your comment.

      Would like to share a comment placed on FB.

      To all those out there insisting on this horrid mockery we would like to remind that the game you're playing affects directly the lives of many.

      Many in Portugal, Cyprus and Greece (lest we forget the blond gypsy stunt) live on tourism. That's what puts bread on their families' tables.


      "Jo Petteford I live in Cyprus and have posted many times over the last couple of days regarding these "incidents" The UK media are creating a false image of the island and taking reports of alleged attempts to kidnap children to sell more newspapers. The fact they are comparing the events to the McCann case shows how low they will sink to sell their newspapers. I doubt this is going to die down. Already there is a media request for families travelling to the island with children to contact them. No doubt further revalations will follow. Financially Cyprus is on its knees. It needs tourism. If the holidaymakers fail to come, the knock-on effect is further unemployment. Then local families will suffer. The reporting has been nothing short of irresponsibilty on a grand scale. Cypriot life is based on two things, family & the church. There is no grey area with the Cypriots. It is either black or white. The concept of taking a child or harming one is beyond them. They are a proud country and Cypriots would rather have a convicted murderer in their family than anyone accused of harming a child. I have lived here for over 15 years and can leave my home without the need to lock doors. I have never felt threatened even when walking alone late at night. There has never been anything like this reported before and the aftermath is going to create massive problems to an already shaky economy and to the Cypriots who do not deserve the bad press. My contempt for the UK press continues to grow! Maybe the UK rags will come and do a piece on the soup kitchens providing meals for families who cannot buy food. young mothers unable to provide formula or diapers for their babies. Animal shelters struggling to provide food for the dogs and cats. Cyprus has no heavy industry, it has no high tech companies. The economy is reliant on two things, real estate and tourism. Real estate is dead and now thanks to irresponsible reporting, the aftermath from these reported incidents is going to have a major impact on whether holiday makers decide to come or cancel their holidays. I apologise to members for the rant, and if my post seems a little of topic but I am angry and upset this has happened. Once more it is innocent people who will suffer. More victims to add to the growing list of those injured by the McCanns and the UK media."

    2. The FB comment was enough to make anyone seriously weep. Athens also has soup kitchens and people sleeping on the streets. Will the McCanns now choose Spain again as their target, as they too are on their knees?
      Disgusting to hear Mitchell suggesting Op Grange might be interested in the Cyprus hysteria.
      I think Op Grange should be interested in him.

    3. Would like to point out that this far the following people have given their faces to "link-Cyprus-to-Maddie" campaign:

      Jim Gamble
      Mark Williams-Thomas
      Clarence Mitchell
      Kate McCann

      Can it be more obvious the desperation of a losing side?

    4. I politely asked Jim Gamble to correct/balance-out his contribution on morning TV - even sending him the link to the Cyprus Government Statement. As yet, nothing. Perhaps a balanced apology would weaken the franchise he's trying to flog.

    5. Now that Mitchell has failed in his attempt to become an MP - luckily for Brighton - he has plenty of time on his hands to promote the Cyprus hysteria.
      What more stories can we expect?
      Will any of them depart from British kids being targets? Foreign kids aren't so desirable, obviously.

  21. It is amazeing how the fantastic dogs are the most attacked aspect of investigating the case. I recently read on twitter a very revealing exchange debating if the dogs were reliable. The guy saying they weren't kept being shown up to be lying and twisting comments from experts, and crazyest of all he says he is a professional private investegator. Made me think of the ones hired by the mcCanns. If only someone could expose the level of organisation behind this and who these defenders really are and how they relate to the case.

  22. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11419-missing-people-and-missingkids-a-ceops-site-posting-details-of-non-existent-person
    Ricardo Firmino is still given as missing
    I commented on a previous post that this was a deceit.
    Who is the boy in the photo?
    Nothing about missing from where, at what time, wearing what, speaking which language/s, last seen by.

    1. Anonymous 22 Jun 2015, 15:18:00,

      Just picked this from FB:


      Jill Havern
      8 mins
      Posted by PeterMac today:

      This is going round Twitter at the moment.

      Isabelle Maria McF @QUEENdePORTUGAL 15h15 hours ago
      I've spoken to APCD and PJ there isnt a child missing from PT named Ricardo Firmino. ‪#‎mccann‬ http://www.ap-cd.pt pic.twitter.com/ghABYQLmuB

      might be a stalker @__StuartB__ 6h6 hours ago
      @QUEENdePORTUGAL what the.... So an invented @missingpeople missing child, who was "found" when people queried the report? #McCann

      Canine Truth @K9Truth 6h6 hours ago
      @__StuartB__ @QUEENdePORTUGAL @missingpeople The alleged missing child was also flagged on http://missingkids.co.uk , a CEOP site ...

      amsterdamkush @amsterdamkush 4h4 hours ago
      @K9Truth @__StuartB__ @QUEENdePORTUGAL @missingpeople This is demonstrably fake. No trace of him on web apart from CEOP/MissingKids #mccann

      So I contacted someone in Portugal who reported - redacted,

      Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 18:15:30 +0100
      Subject: Re: Ricardo Firmino - Your reference number 15-000727

      Well I have just checked out a few of the kids, and some are clearly 'missing' and you can find references to them online

      Now, in the case of this little boy, I went here:
      and then put "overseas" in the box
      and came up with only five children
      Madeleine McC being one,
      Ben Needham being another
      then a little girl called
      Maria-Brigitte Henselmann
      masses of references to her online... then
      Katrice Lee
      again, zillions of mentions (heartbreaking)
      so Ricardo is the ONLY one that has not got a whiff of publicity.
      It's weird and i wonder, from the timeline, whether it is a 'red herring' to kind of show children are still going missing in Portugal...

      And later

      I checked with the Association of missing children here, and the president told me they have no record of him at all

      It is a hoax, with no details, no press reports, nothing

      Maria also tweeted as much some weeks ago

      Can we really believe that people would stoop so low . . . to pretend that children are being abducted or going missing in Portugal ?
      And that CEOPS would be involved, either deliberately or putting this on line, with a photo of a child, without checking facts . . .
      In the case of some we have unfortunately come across over the past 8 years - clearly yes. And we can name them.


    2. Just received this:




      I'm happy to say that Ricardo has been located and is currently with family. Thank you and your friends for your concern. I will raise with Missing People to remove the missing alert.



      Mike Constatinous
      Missing Children Team
      CEOP, Command, Advice Centre, National Crime Agency

    3. Still here


      How many on this list ate genuinely missing if Ricardo still there?

    4. Still on CEOP too

    5. As far as I can see, Missing People should be re-named Mislaid People.
      It seems to be a simple register of names, with insufficient information about last place seen and a full description of the person.
      Unless it can demonstrate that it actually identifies people who are missing and can give an account of those supposedly found, the media should subject this organisation to the same scrutiny as MPs expenses.
      What are the salaries of the executives?
      How many people have been found as a direct result of this organisation? If any.
      Has the organisation made misleading statements in their fundraising activities?
      Has any fraudulent activity taken place?

    6. http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/missing-child-how-sharing-that-picture-can-put-lives-at-risk-weekly-facebook-tips/

      Pretty simple advice, research the story! It may be a scam.

      As Ricardo was on CEOP’s site you would expect it to be a genuine case. It seems not.

  23. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11420-haut-de-la-garenne-article-from-19-october-2012

    Discrediting dogs in Jersey.

    Attempts were made to make it seem Eddie only found a coconut shell.

    We hope readers now understand why we interrupted our days to write this post.

    1. Textusa, it was very unfortunate for Martin Grime that in 2007 he went to PdL with Eddie and Keela to assist with the disappearance of Maddie, and in 2008 went to Haut de la Garenne to assist in the investigation there, because in both cases he walked in to a situation where there is a massive cover up.

      The video of Eddie at HDLG is here:


      It was known there had been open cellars at HDLG and there was anecdotal evidence that children had been abused in those cellars decades ago and some had possibly died, but note that when Eddie was there the cellars were still filled in, in fact no-one at that point even knew where the entrances to the cellars were.

      Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in several places above the cellars, as can be seen in the video, and the written commentary on that page by Lenny Harper (the Senior Investigating Officer) explains the relevance of those alerts. It was after Eddie's work there, based on his alerts and the annecdotal evidence that it was decided to excavate them. It was a huge task.

      Also on that page I gave a link to, in the comments, is a list of the bone fragments, children's teeth etc that were found during the excavation. This article also shows a photo of part of the cellars:


      The media in Jersey however, has never reported this information factually and has actually tried to minimise and discredit it. The Jersey media has lied to the people of Jersey like our media lies to us about the disappearance of Maddie McCann. It has been down to the bloggers on Jersey, some of them ex-politicians, to publish the truth about the Jersey child abuse scandal on their blogs, as you publish the truth here on your blog about Maddie McCann.

      It's taken many years and huge sacrifice and dedication from some very exceptional people who would not allow the Jersey establishment to continue to cover up the abuse of children that occurred at HDLG and other institutions on Jersey, and at long last they have a public enquiry and the abuse survivors have been able to get their voice heard.

      Link to the Jersey Care Inquiry website here:


      The McCann camp want to discredit Eddie and they cynically use the cover up of child abuse at HDLG to aid their cause on social media. They didn't start the coconut shell myth, the Jersey establishment did, but the McCann camp perpetuates it.

      Nuala x

    2. Disagree Nuala,

      It was unfortunate for the Establishment. In both cases these wonderful animals made it show its true colours.

      We are much wiser, and so fortunate, thanks to Eddie and Keela.

    3. The child abuse carried out by these horrendous people seems to be a world wide problem that has been kept secret for too long,establishment cover up,abuse by the Clergy?
      Here in the Uk, child abuse has been reported in Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. The abuse has been carried out by nefarious people filming the abuse to use as Black Mail against the abusers in later life when in possible prominent positions of Government, the Armed Forces Judiciary!?
      Different Governments have been Elected for over forty/fifty years and allowed for the abuse to be carried on, up to date no Politician in the UK has been prosecuted or stood trail for child abuse, these people must be holier than the rest of Society?

  24. Actually Textusa, I don't think we are in disagreement, though I concede my wording might not have been very good.

    When I said it was unfortunate for Martin Grime, all I meant was, he had no idea on those two occasions when he took Eddie and Keela to PdL in 2007 and HDLG in 2008 that both cases would balloon in huge cover ups, something he couldn't have forseen.

    Because of both cases his reputation was brought into question in a most disgraceful way, and the ability of his dogs.

    I hope that clarifies :)

    On the subject of Eddie and Keela themselves, I've said here before they're my heroes, so we're certainly not disagreeing about them :)

    Nuala x

  25. http://portugalresident.com/brits-take-maddie-cop-appeal-fund-to-almost-%E2%82%AC46000

    Brits take Maddie cop appeal fund to almost €46,000

    In an amazing outpouring of support, British people donating to an online appeal have raised almost €46,000 to help former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral stand his corner against the parents of Madeleine McCann.

    As newspapers have reported throughout the world, Amaral has been slapped with a €600,000 bill for the pain and anguish his book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ caused Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry.

    In a poignant interview with Portuguese magazine Nova Gente, Amaral explained how the only thing keeping him alive since the verdict that went against him was his heart.

    “My life is gone,” he said.

    But he hadn’t bargained on the sheer volume of support, waiting to be rallied to his cause by a 22-year-old single mum from Birmingham, who was only 14 when Madeleine went missing from apartment 5a in the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz.

    In six whirlwind weeks, almost 2,000 people have dug into their pockets, some again and again with tiny amounts, others occasionally with lump sums of £1000 at a time.

    As we clocked off for the weekend, the fund was one person short of 2,000, with the amount collected standing at £32,675.

    Leanne Baulch, the young woman behind the initiative, was “amazed”.

    “I never imagined we would get this far,” she told us.

    The money now will all be ploughed into Amaral fighting his appeal, lodged earlier this month, and likely to cost “at least £40,000”, explained Ms Baulch.

    The long-running civil court case was lodged against Amaral by the McCanns in 2009 after he wrote his book explaining the theory that Madeleine had not been abducted at all.


    1. Let us hope Mr Goncalo Amaral wins his appeal and ascertains information that Carter Ruck had to clarify in the UK courts that there is No Evidence of an Abduction in the case of missing child Madeleine McCann 03 May 2007 5a Ocean Club Apartment.
      Lawyers were asked by Tony Bennett to provide proof of an Abduction, the McCanns lawyer had to withdraw "Abduction remark" as there is no proof of it happening.

    2. Why UK obstructed the Portuguese Investigation since first day?
      Why the couple don't like the GA book?
      Because He was the PJ Coordinator? Why UK don't want the real truth?
      Why the mc machine are destroying since 2007 a Portuguese Citizen and His Family?
      Why PT PJ must justify if all was obstructed and manipulated?
      ( sorry but I only have learned no english)

  26. Hi Textusa, very new to your blog so, I haven't had time to read all your postings. I have always had a problem with Kate's reaction, in her book, to the recording of the dogs doing their thing in 5a, especially around the window and the settee. In her statement, just before she was named as a suspect she was shown the recording of Eddie alerting to cadaverine behind the settee but, Kate states it was at this point where she started to relax and began to realize this was not an exact science. My problem is if the last time you had seen your daughter alive and still believed she was wouldn't you be relaxed right at the very beginning when she first saw the dogs, why would you only relax when Eddie alerted behind the settee. My only answer I can come up with is actually tied, some what, in to yours. What if Kate, in her arrogance, thought the "deep clean," that was under taken when Maddie's body was removed from the back of the settee for washing and so on was more than enough and no contamination had taken place.

    1. Wendy Adams,

      Our apologies for only publishing your comment now but for some unknown reason your comment has only just arrived.

  27. Why is it that people are being 'led by the nose' just as the dogs were? 'Evidence' of dead bodies, statements being allowed to be corrected over and over again, people supposedly being somewhere when they could not have been because they were seen somewhere else, photos being altered for example. Involvement of people in high places in what was a missing people investigation. Don't you get the impression that you are being conned? Don't you feel that you are walking along a path that they have led you to? I do.

    Maybe the McDuffs are not guilty of child abuse etc etc. Even if that can/cannot be proved there is still the fraud element. Why hasn't this been investigated at length? These people should not still be living a normal life, they imo should be behind bars for fraud in setting up a fund that was bound to fail to find M. Can we therefore believe that M is still around? The fund was for legal expenses and other expenses such as mortgage payments for the McDuffs and was never intended to help find M. The public have been conned good and proper and therefore there should be a charge of 'Fraud' if nothing else. Why have they been allowed to go free all these years since M was declared missing? Why has our UK Government spent millions on a case that is going nowhere and is likely to be shelved?


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.