Friday, 26 January 2018

The reliability of the cadaver dogs

1. Introduction

We could start this post with saying that Insane is a sore loser. Or start by saying that he has been very helpful in finding the truth again just because he’s a sore loser.

We won’t do that as when writing this post we are expecting new readers as a result of Gemma O’Doherty’s article, which at the time of writing this, we know nothing about its real content yet.

However, judging by the way Gemma has publicised her article it leaves us with optimism, as all indicates that she’ll make a direct link between the McCanns and Maddie’s death.

That link, hopefully, will finally see the light of day in a public media outlet.

So, this said, and transporting ourselves in time, we would like to point out to readers who are arriving here for the first time after Gemma has published her article that these words you are now reading were written without us knowing whether we are to praise or to criticise her, and in case we feel we should praise her, we don’t know up to what point we agree with what she has said.

In case she doesn’t subscribe to our theory, which seems likely, we assume our share of the blame as she did ask on Facebook for those willing to help to contact her directly and privately and we haven’t done that although we are certain others have.

We trust in truth and its wholesomeness.

If a little bit of the truth, like the direct link between the McCanns and Maddie’s death, is allowed to see the light of day, then we trust it will flourish wholly.

We, on our part for many years have nourished the soil the best we could for when that day happens.

We hope that the title of this post will instigate new readers to continue reading the post, and after having done that, explore the blog and its contents.

To our usual readers, prepare yourselves for a long but worthwhile post.

2. Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000

To newcomers to the case, we feel we should explain who this Insane character is. He’s a professional pro-McCann. He uses multiple personas but the 2 main ones that we have to be aware of is ‘Not Textusa’ and ‘Walkercan1000’.

The first is a blogger and the latter a tweeter who identifies himself as Michael Walker.

‘Insane’ is a nickname he gave himself in a comment he submitted a long time ago to this blog, long before Not Textusa and Walkercan1000 existed and which we have used since then to identify this individual with invented multiple personalities.

Even in the ‘multiple personalities’ department he’s a failure, because once you read him and under whatever persona he’s faking to be at that moment his personality is unique and not pleasant, to say the least, and he ends up inevitably revealing himself.

We usually censor his swearing, but on this particular post we will leave his comments untouched so that the new readers can have a sense of the kind of individual we are dealing with.

This post has then 2 objectives.

The first to show very clearly how reliable are the EVRD dogs, most commonly known as cadaver dogs.

The second to allow a glimpse of the kind of people that those of us trying to find the truth have opposing us, known in the Maddie world as ‘pro-McCanns’, people who fiercely defend the hoax beyond any reason, shame or decency.

For example, one of them, Nigel Nessling, was last November convicted of paedophilia.

However, at the beginning of the post we said Insane has proven to be useful in finding the truth. He has. Him being one of the unreasonable, shameless and indecent people, doesn’t mean he can’t be of use.

For example, without his specific indication, we wouldn’t have found out that the Ocean Club booking sheets had been tampered with, proving without a shred of doubt the involvement of the Ocean Club resort in the obstruction of justice.

The number of people listed doesn’t add up, which can only mean that names were deleted. People who were present in Luz that week and didn’t wish for that to be known.

This participation in the hoax by the management of the Ocean Club shows new readers that the hoax goes far wider than a mere group of 9 people, known as the Tapas 9, on that resort.

We wouldn’t have known all this if it wasn’t for Insane.

And now, very recently, he has again provided a great service to the truth: by proving how reliable, and helpful in forensics, the EVRD dogs are.

He does this when he came on to the blog to defend an “Anonymous” who had come to discredit the EVRD dogs with an absolutely ridiculous article trying to show how unreliable these dogs were supposed to be according to its author(s). We will transcribe entirely the dialogue we had in this blog later in the post.

The irony is that Insane as Not Textusa who is supposed to believe wholehearted and unquestionably – even to the point of being ridiculous in this belief – in the EVRD dog, Eddie.

He supposedly worships the ground on which Eddie walks but he doesn’t believe in Keela, the blood dog, as he’s adamantly against blood being found in the living-room of apartment 5A (a disbelief that Not Textusa shares with Walkercan1000).

This corner was signalled by this dog and we are still waiting for him to tell us what he does think Keela signals.

It seems to us that one cannot trust the nose of one dog and not the nose of another but apparently Insane is able to do that.

He trusts the nose of Eddie to the point of believing that Eddie was able to have picked up airborne molecules of cadaver scent that inexplicably wafted into the apartment and that with time accumulated in the corner of the living room and in the corner of the bedroom closet and lingered there from May 3 to the end of July, like we showed in our post “Playful molecules”.

Whilst wearing the Not Textusa clothes, Eddie, the EVRD dog is for Insane that good, that reliable!

Do keep that in mind, because, dear oh dear, Insane has added another foot to that numerous collection he already has in his mouth.

3. The ERVD dogs reliability ridiculous article ‘debate’

It all started with a comment we published, supposedly by an Anonymous.

After having published it, we regretted having done so because we saw it was about to bring over to the blog the already exhausted debate on whether the EVRD dogs were or not reliable, when everyone knows they are. Only Gerry McCann and Walkercan1000 say they aren’t.

Little did we know that by deleting this comment, and thanks to Insane it must be again emphasised, it would prove to be so useful in showing with unquestionable clarity the reliability of the EVRD dogs and as a bonus, answer many questions people may have on the subject.

We transcribe how it all happened in the comment and replies to it we made in our last post “Gemma O’Doherty”:

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:36:00

We have deleted a comment. As we have said the in following reply to Anne Guedes who also submitted reply to that comment which we also didn’t publish:

Textusa20 Jan 2018, 13:07:00 
Anne Guedes,
We have deleted the comment form Anonymous at 20 Jan 2018, 12:23:00 and we're not publishing your reply to him/her at 20 Jan 2018, 12:55:00 because we don't want to go into a debate on whether the dogs are reliable or not.
We all know they are. Only disgusting people covering-up for the death of a 3 yr old try to create doubt over that out of self-interest.”

We now have reason to publish the deleted comment. It was this one from our pet-stalker Insane, now under the guise of an anonymous:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
"As we have said repeatedly, the dogs to not give false positives."
On what basis are you making that claim?
(You're wrong, incidentally, but you have stated it as fact several times) 
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Jan 2018, 12:23:00

The reason we are now publishing this deleted comment is because, very out of character for Insane, he has provided in a new comment a link with which we suppose he intends to make a basis to his claim reflected is his words “You're wrong [about dogs not giving false positives], incidentally”:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
"As we have said repeatedly, the dogs to not give false positives"
I asked where you got this from, but you deleted my comment.
Your claim is untrue. I assume that's why you deleted my comment, which makes you a dishonest coward, incapable of backing up a claim
For the record: 
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Jan 2018, 20:18:00

Since his blog has blundered away together with his Not Textusa persona and also because his Twitter presence has deflated – most likely because of the upcoming Gemma O’Doherty article which is making him show evident signs of worry – to a pitiful parroting of copying and pasting, we guess he now has a bundle of time on his hands and he has find some way to try and distract his worries away.

So, Insane went and researched the internet. That place where one can always find sites where it’s stated with absolute certainty that black is white and alongside other sides that guarantee without doubt that white is black. So, naturally he found a site discrediting the EVRD dogs AKA Cadaver dog.

Please note we are not devaluating the internet as fortunately the vast majority of sites are reliable and a very useful source of information. Just saying that if one wants to find what one wants to find, one will end up finding it.

So, like a 2 yr old toddler showing his parents how successful he was being with his potty training, Insane submitted the link above, all proud of himself.

The site is not exactly a scientific one. In fact, in its banner it says “Death/Scent – Exploring the weird & wonderful world of fragrance & funerals”.

And in it Insane found an article that disses the cadaver dogs. It says things like “When cadaver dogs were first scientifically evaluated in the 90s their success rate in one study was only 57%, that is just a hair above chance” and “Improvements in training helped cut down on handler-induced false positives, where the dog gave a positive reading because its handler unconsciously gave the dog cues that they thought the location was right.”

And even suggests that the dogs are so unreliable that modern technology is bound to replace them in the future.

In fact, before we pick on a few things on this article, it’s intent it’s very clear: dogs bad, tech good.

That, basically encapsulates the reason why there is an article somewhere in the plethora of articles in the internet, which Insane was able to find.

We will follow with some pearls from this article, with which, Insane, once again, has made an arse of himself.

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:36:00

Reply #1

We will start with this phrase:

“Sometimes dogs indicate the scent of human remains when none are there”

First, in which circumstances did the dogs alert to human remains where there were none? Do note that, like Insane so often does, the article just says it’s so. It doesn’t provide any basis to this claim.

How is it possible for it to know where human remains are NOT present? We see only one way: baiting.

Bait the dog with another substance and he signal it. So, indeed a false positive… or is it?

When can this baiting happen? In training.

To Insane, so there’s no doubt what we mean by training:

That stage the animal has to undergo before he’s certified to execute the task for which he was trained for.

Means that if a dog provides a false positive DURING TRAINING, he’s responding to other stimuli that he has wrongly associated his reaction to others than those intended.

A dog does not cheat. A dog reacts to a stimulus. The error is in the training, not in the dog.

And there are dogs that have a nature that makes it impossible to be trained. Nothing wrong with their noses but with a personality inadaptability to what is required from the animal.

If a dog is not deemed reliable during training he obviously is not certified.

To illustrate this, let’s use a quote from the article “While anecdotal evidence shows dogs finding bodies buried under meters of soil, concrete, and even under water…”

Let’s place this unreliability alleged by Insane not on a crime scene but on a humanitarian one. An earthquake for example. That would mean a dog signalling a corpse under rubble, efforts being made, an expenditure of human, material and time resources, to remove that rubble to find nothing.

Would that hypothesis be remotely acceptable? No. Insane knows that, he just pretends he doesn’t.”

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:37:00

Reply #2

From Insane’s submitted link:

“...or they [the dogs] send the search party off track due to the scent of a dead rabbit in the woods”

Really, dead rabbits? Where and what circumstances, one should ask if one really wants makes the effort to overlook how falsely biased commercially this article is, and what a fool of themselves is making whoever wrote this crap. It doesn’t say, just says it and one is supposed to swallow it as truth, from an article designed to discredit cadaver dogs in favour of recent technology that will eventually replace them or as the article states very clearly, “fine-tuning the instrument used to train cadaver dogs, which might one day replace them altogether”

And this from the same article that says “What they found was that the closest animal analogue to human decomposition was the pig, not chicken. 8 compounds (ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, propyl butyrate, ethyl pentanoate, pyridine, diethyl disulfide, methyl(methylthio)ethyl disulfide and 3-methylthio-1-propanol) were distinctive among human and pig remains and not present in other animal remains”.

Trained on pig and the dogs find rabbit says this incredibly NOT reliable article. We refer Insane to our reply above.”

Textusa21 Jan 2018, 23:38:00

Reply #3

Again from Insane’s submitted article:

“...likewise, trainers have tried improving accuracy by using human analogues like chicken carcases or isolates of cadaverine and putrescine (you might remember them from our indole post). No one asked, however, does rotting chicken smell like human decomposition? Any animal tissue produces cadaverine and putrescine, so do tools like this really help?”

EVRD dog trainers are portrayed to be really, really stupid.

As we saw before, the article, not us, says that it has been determined that pig and human share 8 compounds differently from all other animals but yet the trainers insist on using “chicken carcases or isolates of cadaverine and putrescine”.

And all, apparently, to see them end up finding rabbits???

Note how the article tries to scrap any and all importance that dogs may have with the final words of the paragraph “so do tools like this really help?”

Don’t these words just sound like music to Insane? They do. Unfortunately for him, they are as ridiculous as he is.”

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:39:00

Reply #4

Again from the same article:

“Decomposition, however, changes with time, weather, and the state of the body upon death. Unlike drugs or explosives, we are asking cadaver dogs to find one particular decomposing thing in a big old world full of decomposing things.”

Decomposition is decomposition. It’s a chemical process of enzyme transformation. It does not depend on any of the things above. The only one that may affect its speed is temperature. Note, it affects the speed of the process, not the process itself.

Note, the words above are so stupid that they contradict the entire objective of the article: promote the supposed technological gadgets.

If they were to be true, it would mean that a body had to be found, then determine the time of death, the weather from that moment until the moment the body was found, realise the state of the body at the moment it was found, so that these parameters can be introduced into the machine so it could find the body that has just been found.

The operator of such machine should be careful when introducing the data, allow for the time he intended to find the body, in terms of weather and state of the body because what is now is not what will be 2 hours later, or at any time in the future. The only constant is the time of death, once determined upon finding the body to be found.

Only evil and ignorant people like us cannot follow such crystal-clear logic.

Note how the paragraph disses the dogs, again.

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:39:00

Final reply

We won’t waste any more time.

This article offers absolutely no credibility. It’s not even specious because it doesn’t limit itself to twist truthful data but invents lies such as dogs sending search parties after rabbits.

It is filled with scientific jargon but it’s just like mouthwash that doesn’t cure bad breath, and we would ask Insane to turn his face away, and publish what he has to say either in his blog (sorry, forgot he can’t as his Not Textusa persona defends the dogs) or on his Twitter account.

Insane, by the way, we find you repulsively disgusting not because you try to discredit what is impossible to discredit which is nature, in this instance in the form of the noses of dogs.

We find you repugnant because of the disrespect shown to the death of Madeleine Beth McCann by your incessant dedication in the cover-up of her death.”

Textusa 22 Jan 2018, 11:06:00

Apologies, but just an annex to the replies.

Above we have just said "... either in his blog (sorry, forgot he can’t as his Not Textusa persona defends the dogs)" and that is wrong.

He only trusts Eddie.

He doesn't trust Keela, the blood sniffing dog.

We are still waiting from him to tell us what does he think Keela signalled in apartment 5A.”

This was the state of things when Insane made his entrance on stage.

4. Not Textusa retirement and resurgence

Here, it’s very important to establish what Insane considers important and what he doesn’t.

Insane kept his blog exclusively against us up until Feb 5, 2016. Almost 2 years ago. He responded to our post of that same day “A Triumph of Tycoons”.

He then went on another blog to try to pass the Not Textusa persona as a serious and respectful individual so that in doing so he could discredit us there.

But as we said, no matter how much he pretends to be someone else, his character surfaces and soon threw the toys out of the pram and left that blog and when doing it, did the very adult thing of deleting all his comments there.

His following few posts are just resentment about having left that blog.

We published our post “Third option” on March 11, 2016.

On that same day he was challenged on his blog to respond to this post which he agreed to do:

Kee Cee 11 March 2016 at 12:17
Waky waky Not-T......
A real psycho-analysis of yourself..... on the Luna-site.....
looking forward for your 'breakdown'

Not Textusa 11 March 2016 at 14:16
Yep, seen it. It'll have to wait a day or so, I'm kind of busy. Still, it shouldn't take too long, she's off her head as usual :-)”

He agreed to but never found the time to.

Very busy. So busy that all he had to time to do was to create half a dozen blogs attacking other characters (probably in an effort to discredit us by establishing a parallel between us and them) but apparently didn’t seem to find any to acquiesce to Kee Cee’s request to which he had agreed.

He last posted on his blog on May 22 2016, to announce the opening of another of his useless blogs, which we believe didn’t even happen.

Note that between February and May 2016, when he ‘abandoned’ us, although he didn’t find time to respond to our “Third Option”, he found time to dedicate posts on his other blogs on important subjects such as one on May 21 2016 in which he replies to Sharon Osborne as per our post “The “friend” and the appeal”.

His last entry was on May 26 2016 in a comment posted on his blog.

From then on, Not Textusa went into total and absolute hibernation.

Until he resurfaced last year, on Dec 10, to comment on our blog.

And why did he come back? Because we had said he was FiremanDave and Michael Walker/Walkercan1000 on Twitter:

Textusa 10 Dec 2017, 20:46:00 
A lovely, heart-warming comment we have just received from our 'departed' friend:

"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Red card":
I see time has not improved your mental health, Textusa.
I am not ''Fireman Sam'' or any of the other loons you have crossed swords with. In fact, I do not have a Twitter presence at all.
Kindly remove any reference you have made to me in your comments. And then go and take your tablets.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 10 Dec 2017, 20:23:00"

Is that really you or is someone impersonating you, like you so much love to do?”

Because we said he was on Twitter under different personae, he broke his silence. 563 days of it.

And he was so upset about it that he even ‘reopened’ his blog to write a post on Dec 11 2017:

“So, Maria, as I am sure you are aware that I have all your real-life details, I suggest you stop making or publishing claims that I am Michael Walker/Fireman whatever and that you do not make any reference to me in association with disgusting convicted criminal Nigel Nessling.

If you continue, I will issue proceedings against you. I will also have your Facebook page pulled again.”

And he must have spent Christmas mulling over this because on Jan 5 2018 he insisted on the issue in another post:

“I have posted this comment to her site, but I suspect she will fail to publish it. So here it is

"As already stated, I am not the twitter user you identify and I have no twitter presence.
Remove your comments, Maria"

So let's see if Textusa, aka US citizen Maria Santos, will remove her lies.”

This is true, he did submit this comment but he lies when he says it wasn’t published.

It was submitted at Jan 5 2018 20:17 and was published at Jan 5 2018 20:36:

Not Textusa 5 Jan 2018, 20:17:00
As already stated, I am not the twitter user you identify and I have no twitter presence.
Remove your comments, Maria”

Now, it’s important to note, that when he reopened the blog on Dec 11 2016, he started his post with the following words:

“Hello all, long time no see

I haven't bothered blogging as, frankly, there wasn't anything worth blogging about.”

So, from end of May 2016, until the beginning of 2017, according to him nothing important on the Maddie case happened. At least nothing worth commenting about.

For example, when Mr Amaral challenged the UK to do a reconstruction of the evening/night of May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night”) and we detailed extensively in our post “Reconstruction for May 3rd 2007”) who we thought, explaining why, certainly should be called for that reconstruction, Insane didn’t find that important to comment.

Other subjects that happened in that period of time which Insane didn’t find important to comment on:

- When Clement Freud, the paedo, was linked to the McCanns;

- When Clarence Mitchell was fired (or was he?);

- When it was said there were Ghoul Tours in Luz;

- When Ben Needham, the other ‘celebrity British missing child’ was pronounced dead by the South Yorkshire Police;

- When the McCanns lost their appeal in the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When, as we got to know the text of the acórdão, the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court stated clearly that the McCanns had not been cleared;

- When the Daily Mail says that there was blood found in apartment 5A but says “and it is important - to point out that the blood traces were never identified as human”;

- When the McCanns filed their complaint against the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When it was reported there was a key witness that would be crucial to solve the case;

- When the McCanns lost their complaint against the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When Woman-in-Purple made her first appearance;

- When Colin Sutton appeared on scene to say Operation Grange was biased and useless;

- When the BBC broadcast their Panorama programme;

- When the McCanns conceded defeat and said that they wouldn’t file a process in the ECHR;

- When we published tweets tweeted on May 2016 saying “Mmmm! Mark Warner’s holiday centres were used as knocking shops when Maddie went missing, hence the ban on kids in many of their restaurants, as the adults would openly wife-swap during the evenings! We went there by mistake (thanks to lastminute and even tubby old me spent the week trying to evade the randy upper-class men!”;

- When the McCanns said they had filed a process in the ECHR;

- When Woman-in-Purple made her second appearance;

- When the sex-pest list hit the news;

- When Nigel Nessling was sentenced for being a paedophile.

None of the above deserved being important by Insane but the fact that we said that he was Fireman Dave and Walkercan1000 drove him back. Go figure.

He was so bothered about it that, as could be seen, he has even threatened us with legal action. As a side-note, one must ask if the libel laws in the UK have become such a joke that legal threats are used for literally anything, however absurd it may be. It seems to be the case.

Note, the last subject before hibernation he had given importance to was Sharon Osbourne.

Also note that we haven’t mentioned in the subjects above the 3 times funding of Operation Grange was continued (September 2016, April 2017 and September 2017) nor about the pathetic appearance of the Missing People’s Choir on Britain’s got talent.

So, we are all to believe that for 563 days Insane stood quietly on the side-lines while all of the above that was happening on the Maddie case happened. Seriously?

We find more credible his airborne playful molecules and we do believe that whoever believes in them should have their heads examined.

It’s evident that Insane abandoned his blogging persona (Not Textusa ) and decided to concentrate his full attention and efforts on his Twitter one (Walkercan1000) during more than a year and a half.

But was exposing Not Textusa as Walkercan1000 the only issue Insane found important enough to justify a comeback? No, and that is quite telling.

First he butted in a debate with an Anonymous about how the sedation disproves by itself the neglect theory.

We defend that someone had to be present at the time of death for the blood spatters on the walls, floor and back of a couch to have happened.

Insane disputes this, says that was no blood found, basing his arguments solely on the FSS report which we all know has absolute no credibility while simultaneously discrediting Keela who has 100% credibility.

In his Walkercan1000 persona, not only does he also deny the existence of blood as he takes this denial 3 steps even further forward.

Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
No blood found in 5A. Ask MET, ask PJ, ask the labs. No blood. XXX #McCann #mccann #Mccann #mcCann
3:59 pm - 20 Jan 2018

The first is to invent labs (plural).

Even imagining that it was a typo and he meant to the say “lab”, he’s not being truthful. The only lab that has provided an opinion about the issue, the conveniently extinct FSS, has not said there was no blood. It has said that it tested negative for the tests (chosen by the lab to do but nowhere is the scientific data annexed to this report) that was done but never states that it isn’t blood.

The report omits saying what fluids caused the stains because it was not possible, or so says the FSS report, determine what they were. By not being able to determine from what bodily fluids the samples came from, then none can be ruled out, including blood.

The further second and third steps into this ‘blood denial’ are him saying the PJ and the Met have said there was no blood. Where has he got that info from? He hasn’t, he’s lying.

About the sedation/neglect/blood debate, the reader can read it in our post “Post for comments

Besides this, he also found it important enough to intervene in the EVRD dog reliability issue discussed in last week’s post “Gemma O’Doherty”.

5. Insane hiding information

Reading our comment and subsequent replies further up in the post directed at Anonymous, even though we did say that he was Insane, there is only a certainty: that person was anonymous.

Let’s imagine that we were wrong on assessing that it was Insane. Wouldn’t Not Textusa be laughing his head off about how off the mark we were?

Plus, he could even rub in our face how stupid we were being by reinforcing the idea that he trusted totally Eddie’s capability, so he couldn’t possibly be that particular Anonymous.

But as we said right at the beginning of the post, Insane is a sore loser. And we really ridiculed that Anonymous. He was vexed.

Note is his entrance on scene. When, supposedly, he should be mocking us for mismatching him for some idiot out there he’s aggressive without a hint of his patronizing humour. Just pure anger, as he if had just been vexed.

By the way, the anonymous idiot we vexed, suddenly fell silent, as if he passed the baton to Not Textusa to continue the race.

This was Insane’s unpublished comment, his entrance on the debate:

Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
As usual, your paranoia is running rampant, Textusa. I'm not your anonymous poster. He is right, however.
Table 1
Signaling behavior in interconnection to the time of contamination
Contamination time/signaling ‘‘B.’’ ‘‘K.’’ ‘‘L.’’ Total
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living person/correct negative 26 43 46 115
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive 0 3 0 3
2 min/correct positive 9 27 12 48
2 min/false positive 0 0 0 0
2 min/false negative 3 1 4 8
10 min/correct positive 40 60 76 176
10 min/false positive 0 1 0 1
10 min/false negative 0 3 0 3
Total 78 138 138 354

Now - if you were as informed as you like to claim you are, you would recognise those results, taken from a well-respected published paper.
As you will also see, even with the loss of formatting, false positives were recorded several times. This was using fully trained, certified dogs.
Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't. You're a con-artist; nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:16:00

We did not publish his comment because it’s just information without context. So, we could understand it we replied very politely and even promised that we would (as we are now doing) publish his comment if he gave us the link to where he got the information from:

Textusa 22 Jan 2018, 19:23:00
Unpublished Not Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:16:00
Please provide link to where you got the table you have provided so we can publish your comment.”

To this, Insane replied with a comment we didn’t publish for reasons the reader can easily understand, but that we now feel we should do as it’s relevant:

Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
Go fuck yourself.
If you knew the first thing about cadaver dogs you would recognise it, but you don't because you are just a bullshitter I'll publish it on my own blog
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:46:00

And he kept his word, and did a post on this on his blog.

After a year and a half of silence we now have 3 posts. Two on him not having a Twitter presence and this last one, coming to the rescue of “some anonymous” who was in fact contradicting his position on Eddie, the EVRD dog.

So in his blog he wrote this as an introduction note “This is another comment Textusa refused to publish. She does that when she has no response. She has been claiming that cadaver dogs never give a false positive. This is, of course, bullshit. The rate of false positives and false negatives, when studied in controlled conditions, is very low, but they DO occur, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong”, then Insane copied and pasted the comment transcribed above and followed it with “If she had any idea what she was talking about, she would immediately recognise those results; anyone with an understanding of cadaver dogs would be familiar with them. But remember, this is the thick bitch who claimed that Madeleine's body would be covered in an oily sheen of cadaverine. Stupid cow.”

Note that his comments, both of them, and this post, share 2 things: anger and absence of source.

He does not provide a link to where he got the information from. Not even on his own blog. That piece of information that would ensure us wrong and shame us mercilessly, and yet he holds back from all.

According to him, every expert memorises everything they read on the internet, so that when we read those values they were supposed to ring a bell somewhere on our brains. We know many scientists who must be as dumb as bell, as we see them going back to books to confirm information they are experts on.

We are not familiar with the subject, so much less experts on it. We, on this subject as in others, read and educate ourselves as much as we can, apply logic and come to conclusions. Never forgetting our ignorance.

Our conclusions may be right or they may be wrong. When we are explained that we are wrong, or find that by ourselves, we have absolutely no qualms about recognising it and correcting our hand. We have done so in the past.

Before we continue, let us just make a point about an accusation made by Insane against us: “but remember, this is the (censored, no need to repeat it) who claimed that Madeleine's body would be covered in an oily sheen of cadaverine.”

We thank Insane for allowing us to bring this issue over to our new readers. We have explained our opinion quite extensively in our post “Cadaver compound

To sum it up, we have said the fluid that produces the odour that we have called cadaver odour or scent, characteristic of putrefaction is so complex that its structure is still unknown to science but it’s believed that one of its elements is cadaverine.


Cadaverine is an oily substance, as we showed with photos in our post “Cadaver compound”:

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

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

Having not identified any other significant purely liquid element (in fact the only visible ‘liquid’ substance in the human body apart from urine is blood, which with death quickly thickens and becomes darker due to the lack of oxygenation), it seems to us to be quite clear and obvious that the end result of whatever is produced by the decomposition of the human body is something that has in itself an oily, syrupy substance, cadaverine, is an oily substance.

An oily fluid the body segregates as it decomposes that has such a complex structure that science is still trying to decode it.

So, it is our opinion that it is correct for us to claim that the body becomes progressively “covered in an oily sheen [his words, not ours but which we subscribe].

Our apparent error, is the word cadaverine, but we have already explained that we used it then and there for simplification purposes.

Yes, it’s not precise but it doesn’t minimally alter what we intended to say then. The body is indeed covered by an oily sheen, which is what contaminates the surfaces and this contamination is where the scent comes from that is picked up by the EVRD dog.

Even science doesn’t have a name for the fluid produced by human decomposition as far as we know.

But let’s go back to him not providing a link to the information he has published, so evidently, he wants to hide it from us.

And if he wants to hide it that means it contains things that are inconvenient for him and if things are inconvenient for him, then they are also for the hoax.

6. False positive

So we searched the internet to find this document.

All we had to do was to Google “Uncontaminated or contaminated by living person/correct negative” and found it. Very, very careless, Insane.

In fact, the moment Insane saw the pictures of those 3 dogs on top of the blog, he knew we had found it.

They are from this scientific paper which we recognise as being, to use Insane’s words “from a well-respected published paper” and will also agree with him that the B, K and L, the 3 dogs in question were “fully trained, certified dogs”.

We will publish the link to the paper later in the post, but for now we think we should tackle first the “False Positive” question.

This is the table that Insane published from this paper:

We are not interested for this debate about the positives nor in the true or false negatives, we’re only interested in the false positives. So, let’s narrow that table down to this to this:

So, we have 1 dog, and one dog only out of 3 tested, that returned false positives. In 138 experiments he returned 4 false positives. That represents 2.9% of his results. The other 2 dogs did not give false positives.

Knowing that there was an undifferentiated category of “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples, one assumes that the “2 min” and “10 min” samples were contaminated after being in contact that time with the cadavers.

Yes, we are already revealing that this scientific paper is about an experiment with cadaver odour.

Logic determines that to experiment, valid (contaminated) and invalid (uncontaminated or contaminated by living) samples would have to be mixed.

We have struggled to understand what a false positive on a “10 min” sample is, in comparison with those on the “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” ones.

We will assume that the latter false positives happened when the dogs were presented with only “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples while the first there was a mixture of these with contaminated ones – logic determines that there had to be “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples otherwise no positive false could have been registered.

This is just to clarify that the paper does not clarify if the false positive returned by K was from an uncontaminated sample or from a contaminated by living one.

There’s a huge difference. One has nothing the other something. One would mean a personality disorder of the dog, the other a response to a stimulus different from the expected.

This is not clarified in the paper. For the scientists with the scope of determining the efficiency of dogs in detecting cadaver scent, they were concerned on whether the reaction was from a sample contaminated with cadaver fluid or not. The samples in questions, “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” weren’t and got positive responses, so they were registered, correctly, as false positives.

Taking into account K signalled the sample, and this happened 4 times, we would say he reacted to samples “contaminated by living”.

But, we repeat, this is an assumption on our part which unless the authors say something about it, cannot be confirmed or denied.

We have said that the dogs do not give false positives, and this is what Insane contests. First, pretending to be an anonymous and then when identifying himself.

And after reading this paper, we continue to stand by that statement, as we hope to show why.

We have also said “if a dog provides a false positive DURING TRAINING, he’s responding to other stimuli that he has wrongly associated his reaction to others than those intended. A dog does not cheat. A dog reacts to a stimulus. The error is in the training, not in the dog” and we also continue to stand by this as well.

The paper defines what was considered to be a false positive: “a false-positive reaction was defined by the dog’s positive signalling for any uncontaminated carpet squares while a false-negative signal was defined as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated material without exhibiting the proper signal.”

Looking at the table, one has to redefine this definition, or at least define what exactly is meant by “uncontaminated”. No, we are not playing with words, this is very important.

As we saw, the table presents undifferentiated categories of sample as “uncontaminated or contaminated by living”, so the definition above can only be precisely correct with the following definition: “a false-positive reaction was defined by the dog’s positive signalling for any uncontaminated BY CADAVER FLUID carpet squares while a false-negative signal was defined as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated BY CADAVER FLUID material without exhibiting the proper signal.”

That further but important specification of the terminology allows for the case of a false positive to originate from a sample contaminated by living.

But, the reader may say, whether it’s from a sample with nothing on it or from one without cadaver fluid, the fact is that there were false positives. 4 of them.

These 4 false positives are false positives in terms of cadaver scent, and that is VERY important to be noted.

We have an advantage over our readers and that is at this stage we have read the paper and, yes, there are many reasons why Insane did not put the link up and one of them has to do with this false positive question we’re currently debating.

In this experiment there were used only EVRD dogs. In the paper, the 3 dogs used they are referred to as being ‘‘blood and cadaver dogs’’.

To help readers understand the importance of this, and establishing a parallel between this case and Maddie, in this experiment there were used 3 ‘‘Eddies’’ and no ‘‘Keelas’’.

And it is the absence of a ‘‘Keela’’, a blood dog, in this experiment that may well show that the K's false positives above may not have been false objectives at all.

Let's look at what Martin Grime has to say about the training of the dogs:

About Keela, the blood dog, he says ‘‘the dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.’’

About Eddie, the EVRD dog he says ‘‘the dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.’’

Do note that both dogs alert to ‘‘dried blood from a live human being’’ but the blood dog is “trained exclusively” for blood. That means that a positive reaction from an EVRD dog may be to blood while a positive reaction from the blood dog does not contain cadaver scent.

Back to the experiment, about the 3 blood and cadaver dogs, B, K and L, the paper says that “the education and training the dogs received consisted primarily of searching for ‘‘wet’’ materials such as blood, body fluid and muscle tissue”.

We are assuming that the “body fluid” mentioned can only be what we have called cadaver fluid, the oily fluid the body produces when it decomposes.

As we said, we don’t dispute that K returned false positives for cadaver fluid in this experiment but hopefully by now the reader can see that it seems very likely that they were  appropriate positive reactions.

As we saw, the false positives are from “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples but doesn’t say which.

K also returned false negatives (defined in the paper ‘‘as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated material without exhibiting the proper signal’’) which means to the samples he did not get any stimulus he did not react. This tells us that he didn’t react to clean or uncontaminated samples.

Those 4 false positives were from “contaminated by living” samples.

Those samples were contaminated with something by the living. It is said that the dogs were trained for “wet” samples, which means the contamination by the living had to be “wet” as well. What that “wet” sample was exactly we don’t know, only that it had to be human.

Could that human “wet” that we don’t know what it was, be blood? Yes, it could.

If that was the case, then was giving a positive reaction to a substance K was trained to respond to. A false positive to cadaver scent but a true positive for blood.

What was missed here, was having a blood dog present. That dog would be the one determining of K’s false positive was a true false positive (meaning K had signalled something different from any substance he was trained to detect) or a false false positive (meaning K had signalled blood).

If the blood dog signalled positively K’s false positive, it would be a false false positive. If it didn’t, then it would be a true false negative.

There wasn’t a blood dog there during the experiment, and as the study doesn’t mention anything that could clarify this, we’ll never know, what kind of a false positive this was. We have our opinion about it and will let readers have theirs.

One thing is factual, a blood dog would have clarified this question. If anything, these unexplained false positives have taught that the use in tandem of an EVRD dog with a blood one, eliminates the uncertainty about true or false positives.

When looking at the table without analysing the data on it, the immediate reaction is to “condemn” K as an unreliable dog, in comparison with the other 2.

But, as shown, one should admit the “wet” contamination by living, fell within the “blood, body fluids and muscle tissues” for which the dogs were trained to detect.

That would make him instead more reliable than the other 2 as he was able to detect in lesser quantities other substances to which their noses were trained to detect, which the other 2 had been unable.

K may well have been the dog with the most sensitive nose out the 3 of dogs tested.

The only way to determine that, would be to take the samples he gave false positives to and verify if they contained any substance he was supposed to react to.

If it didn’t contain such a substance, it was a true false positive and the dog would need to be immediately uncertified.

If it did contain a substance to which he was trained to react outside cadaver scent, then it was a false, false positive.

But the study was about the cadaver scent and the study constrained itself, correctly, to its scope.

K did give false positives to cadaver odour under that particular set of circumstances and that doesn’t in any way serve to prove that dogs give false negatives.

But, we musn’t discard the possibility of the samples to which K gave false positives to be from uncontaminated samples, however remote that possibility.

The other possibility is that it was indeed true false positives, K reacting positively to a different stimulus than that of the cadaver scent.

In either possibility, then the problem would have been with the certification process and not with the dog itself.

We repeat, dogs do not give false positives.

Certification, on the other hand, is of human determination and its criteria humanly developed. These criteria are to assure a degree of certainty required but due to human error, may prove ultimately not to be sufficient.

If K gave true false positives then he should have undergone retraining or even be excluded and all his previous findings questioned.

Note, we raised 2 possibilities: K being more reliable than the other 2 and him being less reliable than them. Neither can be confirmed or denied.

Science is dynamic and progressive. When something is found to be incorrect, science does not ignore it, it determines what went wrong and corrects it.

We have all the indications that is exactly what happened with K’s false positives within the circumstances off this particular experiment.

We imagine that is why in Praia da Luz we had 1 EVRD dog and 1 blood dog. The use in tandem of these dogs to eliminate uncertainties.

And probably due to this scientific paper, in terms of current training, reliability is of absolute and utmost importance as is stated in the paper “Rigorous Training of Dogs Leads to High Accuracy in Human Scent Matching-To-Sample Performance” by Sophie Marchal, Olivier Bregeras, Didier Puaux, Rémi Gervais, and Barbara Ferry and brought to us by Anne Guedes, very clearly states:

“…with dogs matching samples with 90% efficiency when the complexity of the scents presented during the task in the sample is similar to that presented in the in lineups, and specificity reaching a ceiling, with no false alarms in human scent matching-to-sample tasks


Only dogs that gave no False Alarms over 200 trials during step 5 (corresponding to the last 24 sessions or 4 to 5 weeks of training) entered the judicial case program. The experimental group comprised 9 dogs (Frost, Diva, Cisko, Bac, Athos, Cartmen, Batu, Dunak and Carlos).


Only dogs that gave no False Alarms over 200 trials during step 5 and continuous training entered the judicial case program. Continuous training continued between each judicial case procedure and throughout the working period of the dog’s life. One dog (Athos) was excluded from the group because its records were accidently lost. The total number of animals in the experimental group was then 12.


These two observations were also confirmed by the fact that all 8 False Alarms observed in the 18,127 trials in continuous training were obtained with the TS/BS combination and in Belgian Shepherds.

BS and TS likely consist of mixtures of various odorant compounds (body molecules + distractors) present in different proportions.”

8 False Alarms in 18,127 in training. 100% needed for certification. Continuous training . One dog excluded because records lost. Is there anything to be said about the reliability of EVRD dogs?

7. K v Eddie

Before we transcribe on the blog the scientific paper we would like to establish the relevance of the false positives in the Maddie case.

Impressive reliability for dual-purpose dogs! Both B and L have proven to 100% reliable and let’s take the worst-case scenario concerning K, and that would be that K’s certification had not been reliable enough and he had an error of 3%.

Note, that he could have also 100% reliability but, as we said, we’re going for the option least favourable to us. Even in such circumstances he was 97% of the times correct.

As we said, K was a dual-purpose blood and EVRD dog. Eddie was a single purpose EVRD dog.

But let’s again, go for the least favourable scenario for us, and let’s “copy and paste K’s unproven unreliability” on to Eddie’s performance.

In practical terms, and only for argument’s sake let’s give Eddie a reliability of 97%.

That means one has to take all that Eddie has signalled and deem only 3% of those results as a false positive. All other 97% are then absolutely reliable, confirmed cadaver scent.

We ask the pros to choose one of the results, any of the results and label it as a false positive. But only one, to fulfil the criteria of 97% / 3%, which is the least favourable possible one to be extracted from a respected scientific experiment specifically on the issue

So, if Eddie was unreliable in the living room, then that means he correctly signalled cadaver scent in the closet and all other signalled locations.

If one chooses to say it was in the closet that he “scored” a false positive then he was 100% right in the living-room and so on.

Please note that we are playing with statistics. EVRD dogs, as we saw in the training paper, are 100% reliable.

Without having the reader read the paper, we hope to have proved that this “well-respected published paper” PROVES SCIENTIFICALLY that cadaver scent was found in apartment 5A, the Renault Scenic and clothing related to the McCanns.

Dogs noses are such a wonderful piece of machinery that even as dual-purposes, it was proved that 2 dogs were 100% reliable and the third one could even be better than them.

8. The document

Here it is, the famous paper known as the “Oesterhelweg paper” which Insane has used throughout these years to claim superior knowledge of EVRD dogs and done all he could to avoid us finding it. Until the day he couldn’t stand losing an argument and got careless:

Please enjoy and extract from it all it has to offer:

Doesn’t it say so much? No wonder Insane didn’t want us to read it.

9. The sentence without a body

Insane, in his Walkercan1000 persona, keeps trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs.

To those saying that no court in the world would take his dogs as serious (as in corroborating, as the dogs only determine that a corpse was present and not its identity) evidence, we got to know from a pro-McCann tweeter about the article from Click on Detroit, “Authorities stand by ruling that Bianca Jones was killed by her father 6 years ago” published on Jan 17 2018  by Kevin Dietz, Derick Hutchinson.

Note how the defense in this case tries to discredit the EVRD dogs:

“The key witness in the trial was a cadaver dog, which the defense team called unreliable.”


“Lane's attorney [Terry Johnson] said the dog trainer is unreliable.

"There were other cases where it was found out the dogs weren't properly trained," Johnson said.

Johnson said police believe a barking dog more than three eyewitnesses who said they saw Bianca alive after the time police said she had died.”

Note how the defense tries to push an abduction theory:

“Lane's attorney, Terry Johnson, said police officers should not make assumptions.

"I don't know if it was necessarily a carjacking as much as it was a kidnapping," Johnson said. "I don't know if someone owed a debt to someone and this was a way of repaying that debt. "”

Note how the defense tries to convey the idea that the police targeted his client:

“Johnson claims the police had an agenda.

"They started that evening with Mr. Lane, and they never took their foot off the accelerator," Johnson said.”

Note how there are sightings of the girl:

“Johnson said police believe a barking dog more than three eyewitnesses who said they saw Bianca alive after the time police said she had died.”

The three witnesses, named in a article linked to this one, are a cousin, a police officer and a private investigator.

About the police officer, although she allegedly identifies the little girl 8 days later but doesn’t take any action for another 4 days (aren’t we reminded of a certain social worker of the Maddie case?) because “she said she told a couple of friends who were police officers but didn't take any official action for four days. She said homicide officials had already decided the father had killed Bianca”

Her testimony was correctly dismissed (as should the statements of that certain social worker but because it’s music to some ears, to them she will be truthful until hell freezes over) by the prosecution:

“The prosecutor who sent D'Andre Lane to prison isn't buying that Bianca is still alive.

"That [the officer’s claim] just doesn't make sense," former Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Qiana Lillard said. "You're a Detroit police officer. This is the biggest thing that happened in the city of Detroit. Everyone is looking for this little girl."”

Note how it’s being tried to get people to look for her:

“"This little girl is alive," Michael Salisbury [the private investigator, one of the 3 witnesses who says the girl is alive] said. "I've seen her."

They're all certain someone knows where Bianca is.

"Somebody will say, 'The little girl's alive. Here's where you can find her,'" Salisbury said.

Johnson said Bianca is alive and in need of rescue. He said her father is an innocent man being held behind bars for life.

"Until this child is found, I don't believe Mr. Lane is going to be exonerated," Johnson said.”

All too familiar? It’s because it is.

But note how discrepancies matter:

“Police said Lane's story didn't add up. He called a friend, not 911, and when he did talk to police, they said he didn't have much information.

"They're trying to pry information out of him," Dillon said. "'What happened?' And you can hear him barely talking."

Prosecutors think Lane tossed his daughter's body into a dumpster and lied about where he was.

"Once they realized that he spent 17 minutes east of Woodward (Avenue), unaccounted for, they tried to halt the trash pickup in that area, but it was too late," Dillon said. "The trash had already been picked up."”

Note how Martin Grime’s cadaver dog mattered:

“Police were especially convinced by dog trainer Martin Grime, who used a cadaver dog to sniff out the presence of a decomposing body.

"We had five hits," Dillon said. "The back seat, the car seat, the blanket, her bed and the trunk of the car. At that point, when our hearts sunk, we're, like, 'We're not finding this little girl.'"

And note to what conclusions the authorities have come to:

“Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy released the following statement on the case:

"This was a heartbreaking case. Defendant Lane was the last one seen with Bianca, and since then, there have been no credible sightings of the child. Ms. (witness Anjali) Lyons was not pressured into testifying.

"We proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court that Bianca is no longer alive and that her father, D'Andre Lane, killed her."”

D’Andre Lane is now serving a life sentence for the murder of Bianca. A sentence passed without a body.

Only in the Maddie case are the EVRD dog signals ignored. Up to now, that is.

Until the day someone reads the FSS “properly” and is “surprised” by what it contains and was “missed”. Or the day the Portuguese Forensic Lab, the INML, will “surprisingly” find evidence in the samples it has of the case.

Note that we’re not in any way implying that Maddie was murdered. We believe and have always defended that she was the victim of an accident, which in the Portuguese penal code would be a non-qualified homicide without negligence or intent, the equivalent to involuntary manslaughter.

Eventually, if we are right in what we think happened, it could be considered privileged homicide which is one practiced under the domain of an understandable violent emotion, compassion, despair or reason of relevant social or moral value, that sensibly diminish the guilt.

10. Conclusion

In the Maddie case the blog we will never turn our faces away from the truth.

If we were proven wrong about false positives, we would have no problem in recognising it.

In fact, we have in this post recognised the possibility that K produced false positives due to certification shortfalls.

But that possibility has the same possibility of having happened as the one in which K did not produce any false positives, as they could only be false positives to cadaver scent but could be true positives for substances for which he was trained for to detect.

But what matters is that when throwing a tantrum against us, Insane has helped us to significantly prove the unquestionable reliability of the EVRD dogs, validating fully that a cadaver was present in apartment 5A as signalled by Martin Grime’s Eddie.

Not only that, but by doing so, he has discredited himself and his playful airborne cadaver odour molecules.

Not because the EVRD dogs are unreliable, because as we have seen they are absolutely reliable, but because he has proven that he had knowledge of these false-positives of cadaver scent by a dual-purpose (blood and cadaver) dog and not only he did not mention it all these years he hid something that would significantly compromise whatever he defends, which is the hoax.

We would say quite a reprehensible attitude for a scientist to have. Yes, he does claim that he’s a scientist. 

He cannot say the EVRD dogs, even if rarely, give false positives, which he does, while at the same time defend that the same dogs can pick up airborne molecules that entered the apartment and have refused to budge for months on a used apartment, as he does.

It shows clearly that Not Textusa lies, as we showed in our “Third Option Post”. This is him speaking:

“The dog alerts - these might not be something you can take to court, but it's a very strong indication as to the direction you would want to look. There is much discussion about the minimum time taken for cadaver odour to develop, and an hour and a half is frequently mentioned. In fact, this arises because of a misreading of the discussion in the Osterhelweg paper - that paper found very high levels of accuracy in the cadaver dogs they tested, and the post mortem interval in the cases they studied was approximately 90 minutes. So while that suggests that after an hour and a half the dog alerts are extremely reliable, it does not establish the MINIMUM time required before the dogs can detect the odour. From other work, it could potentially be considerably less.

However, this misreading has created an idea that there must be a cut-off at 8.30pm, and that whatever happened must have happened before then. That is not necessarily so. And of course this all assumes that the source of the alerts was Madeleine's dead body. Unlikely though it is, one has to consider other possibilities, because a Defence team certainly would. I suggest people research this themselves, as I have no intention of handing information to the pro lobby.”

90 minutes or considerably less, says Insane. We’ll quote ourselves from that same post:

“We spoke extensively of this paper and Insane’s supposed passion for it in paragraph “5 - References” of  our post “Playful molecules”.

We will quote next and from that post the relevant passage of this paper – the only one we believe Insane has ever read of said scientific paper – but first we would like to expose once again Insane for the liar he is.

When he says “Osterhelweg paper - that paper found very high levels of accuracy in the cadaver dogs they tested, and the post mortem interval in the cases they studied was approximately 90 minutes” he’s contradicted by the paper which states very clearly that “At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively”.

That means before the experiment began, both men were cadavers for over 90 minutes.

We haven’t read the paper (we have explained what we have read of it in our post “Playful Molecules”) but we don’t need to read it to state with absolute certainty that there’s nothing in it concerning the first 90 minutes post mortem as no scientific paper would come to with any scientific conclusions about anything that preceded the start of an experiment.”

No wonder he never got to have time to respond to that post, although a specific request for him to do it was made by his friend Kee Cee (who has a plethora of other names with which he signs his comments). What disrespect shown by Insane to Kee Cee, one of his most frequent commentators on his blog, followed by Tigger.

The Osterhelweg paper is quite adamant and answers, or tries to, answer that question directly:

“The most interesting question of all remains: that of how long must an individual be dead for his/her scent to be detectable by a trained cadaver dog? Answering this pertinent question was not part of our investigation, but we can point out that a postmortem interval of 2 h seems to be a safely recognizable interval for the detection of deceased tissue by trained cadaver dogs.”

Also, it shows what his knowledge on the subject is, as when the paper states that the dogs were trained with “wet” material, his theory that the cadaver scent is purely of gaseous material is contradicted.

But then again we are before a SCIENTIST. One who has invented not only the “Playful but endlessly patient airborne molecule thesis” but also that of the “Maddie’s graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A lies, behold, on an ancient medieval graveyard:

To a very direct and specific question: “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, the scientist replies:

“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.”

All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.

We found this to be of very useful reading on cadaver and blood dogs from @Syn0nymph:

It debunks many pro-McCann myths related to this subject, for example it debunks what Clarence Mitchell said on Richard Bilton’s BBC Panorama about Eddie having passed the cuddly toy without signalling it, with this:

“I asked Martin why Eddie did not alert to cuddle cat when he first encountered the toy and his response was this, and I quote:

"Eddie was given a cuddly toy as a reward in training so reverted to puppy mode. His inital reaction in playing with the toy was not unusual at all."”

For some reason, Martin Grime is a visiting fellow of Staffordshire University, at the department which teaches forensics.

About Insane being or not both Walkercan1000 and Not Textusa, is it only us who have noticed the uncanny similarity between the writings of them 2?

To be honest, it has baffled us for a long time how people failed to link Insane with Walkercan1000.

And his Walkercan1000 persona can also stop lying when he says the cadaver scent only lasts 28 days. This what the paper says:

“This systemic investigation ended after 65 days due to the limited time of the dogs and dog handlers to perform regular searches. Non-scientific trial searches performed over the next several months demonstrated additional error-free runs.” and “in agreement with Schoon’s study on the aging of scents, we could not find a decrease in the accuracy of the dog’s performance.”

Post Scriptum:

“Madeleine #mccann. The first little girl in the world to play dressing up and messing with make up.”

The fact that this particular tweeter, tweeted this at this particular time and in the tweet are the words “Madeleine” and “messing with”, added with the fact that this particular tweeter annexed the make-up photo but not the original but a cropped one, is VERY INTERESTING.

No one, as far as we know, was tweeting about this photo at the time. For some reason, this particular tweeter had a sudden urge to tweet about it.

As our usual readers know, we will not answer any questions about this particular Post Scriptum.


  1. I believe walker is family or possibly closer to the case, why else would he tweet constantly and then suddenly be missing and then post random tweets to disappear again, this is a guy who was tweeting so much that people on twitter thought that the account was shared by several people taking shifts and sending tweets. The recent sporadic missing for a few days at a time says something is happening that the public are not aware of yet.

    I try to be fair about the mccanns if I ever post, I don't know what happened to their little girl but I do believe what the dogs told me. I just cant get over all the hate and the lies that has come from people defending the mccanns over the years.

  2. "Please don't publish" at 26 Jan 2018, 11:06:00

    Thank you for the information.

  3. We consider this as important as the ‘Post Scriptum’ in current post:

    Online child abuse expert Jim Gamble gagged by inquiry chief Alexis Jay

    Sean O’Neill, Chief Reporter
    January 24 2018, 12:01am

    A leading figure in the fiin the fight against online paedophilia was barred from giving his full evidence to the public inquiry into child abuse yesterday.

    Jim Gamble, founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), was placed under a restriction order by Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA).

    Mr Gamble has been critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders and the gagging order was sought by the Mational Crime Agency (NCA), which claimed that he planned to disclose “sensitive information”.

    The issues were discussed behind closed doors in London yesterday,…

    (can’t access full article as it’s subscription only)

    1. AnneGuedes26 Jan 2018, 18:10:00
      A leading figure in the fight against online paedophilia was barred from giving his full evidence to the public inquiry into child abuse yesterday.

      Jim Gamble, founding head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop), was placed under a restriction order by Alexis Jay, chairwoman of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA).

      Mr Gamble has been a critic of the low number of arrests of internet offenders and the gagging order was sought by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which claimed that he planned to disclose “sensitive information”.

      The issues were discussed behind closed doors in London yesterday.

      Later, in public evidence to IICSA’s investigation into internet abuse, Mr Gamble said that the exponential growth in the number of online offenders required a stronger response from law enforcement agencies and greater investment from government.

      “There are too few police and far too many predators in the online space,” said Mr Gamble. “These predators . . . can be teachers, police officers, from all parts of society and they live in real homes with real children. It is a critical problem. Yet we’re told that ‘we’re doing as much as we can’.”

      Police say that 400 people are arrested every month for viewing child abuse images but “tens of thousands” more are engaging with paedophile material online.

      Mr Gamble told the inquiry that the NCA chose to spend just £14.5 million of its £450 million budget on Ceop.

      Mr Gamble resigned as head of Ceop in 2010 when Theresa May, then home secretary, decided to merge the agency with the NCA. The former police chief said that that decision had been “political vandalism”.

      Jacqueline Carey, IICSA counsel, said: “The inquiry has actively sought to ensure that as much information as possible is publicly available about how law enforcement investigates online abuse without compromising the sensitive nature of the police’s work.”


      PrimaryKey 2 days ago

      Government officials only 'gag' an expert when the expert's evidence is damning in regard to the Government or shows the Government to be complicit in wrongdoing

      Bishop Jonathan Blake 2 days ago

      Paedophilia is rife, systemic and exists throughout every level of society, right to the very top. It is outrageous that those who do their utmost to protect children, like Jim Gamble, are silenced. When you discover who has silenced them, one is momentarily paralysed in shock. In this case, the very inquiry set up by the government, ostensibly to investigate child sexual abuse, and the National Crime Agency, that has itself stated there are 750,000 potential child abusers in the U.K. The true scale of the scandal of the state's complicity with paedophilia is concealed, because the courts have silenced so many of those who know. This level of corruption and child endangerment is intolerable and unsustainable and all, in time, will be exposed and called to account.

      Sarah Jones 2 days ago

      @Bishop Jonathan Blake

      I agree with all you say. My comment below reflects my honest belief that Alexis Jay is a pretty straight player who the establishment cannot control. hence my concern that this paper, via the headline seeks to blame her. If the NCA suggest that Mr Gamble might compromise on-going work Jay is in an awkward position. They want the inquiry shut before it gets to Greville Janner and co. and Jay is the obvious target.

      Sarah Jones 2 days ago

      The headline is frankly misleading and reflects this papers continued attempts to undermine the inquiry. It was the National Crime Agency that "gagged" Mr Gamble for what seems very good reasons. It's actually a non-story.

      j h 2 days ago

      I suggest that the apathy is due to a significant number of those who are on the 'side of justice' being paedophiles themselves. Look at how many of these creeps get off with light sentences.

    2. We recommend readers read the "Twitter debate" on this issue:

    3. On this issue, we would just like to say what we have said many times in the blog: having information and not being able to use it, not only is it useless as it becomes a liability.


    “Men Only: Inside the charity fundraiser where hostesses are put on show

    A furore has erupted over a men-only fundraising dinner in London for the Presidents Club charity after an FT investigation revealed hostesses at the event were groped, sexually harassed and propositioned. Here is the FT coverage of the event and its aftermath

    Madison Marriage in London
    JANUARY 23, 2018”

    Can anyone tell us where is there any illegality in this? Not saying we agree with what happened, just asking if something illegal was done.

    If there was nothing illegal, it shouldn’t be news because it’s irrelevant if it is socially reprehensible or not, say all those who say swinging would never justify a cover-up in the Maddie case.

    1. We would like to make it clear that the women hosting the event had not agreed to be groped and made the subject of inappropriate comments in their contract.

      Any groping was therefore a sexual assault.

  5. Please let me observe that, in the Rosier (Leuven University) study, the cadaver dogs whose discriminating nose needed to be improved in order to avoid eventual false positive were Belgian dogs who had been mostly trained (only 2 trainers) with nonspecific compounds such as butan-1,4-diamine (putrescine) and pentan-1,5-diamine (cadaverine) by the Belgian Federal Police.
    MG said it clearly, Eddie wasn't trained with those compounds and wouldn't even react to them.

    1. Anne Guedes,

      Yes, we read that in "your" document. This passage indicates that the problem with those dogs, of a particular breed, had personality issues:

      “Interestingly, all False Alarms were made by Belgian Shepherd dogs; the reason for this is unclear, however the time these dogs took to complete their line-up tasks suggests a decrease in level of attention.”

      The effort to achieve excellence by the people in this field is evident.

      It's factual that it is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY for Eddie & Keela to have produced so many false positives.

      We would say that it would be way beyond reasonable (to use the word from "reasonable doubt") to doubt a single result produced by those 2 dogs.

      But, even if one wants to be way beyond reasonable, as we said in post, even if one applies the 97% (very unlikely but possible) K's success rate to Eddie and Keela, then they have to justify all the 100% reliable TRUE POSITIVES.

      No wonder Insane tried to keep this away from us all.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Have deleted this comment and copied it as a reply to our comment at 26 Jan 2018, 12:58:00, where the link to the article the comment refers to is mentioned

      Thank you, once again Anne Guedes

  7. Imo JG will use anything he can, conspiracy being his favourite tool, to get a revenge against the merging of the CEOP into the NCA. He hated losing leadership.
    Is somebody able to explain to me what the CEOP had to do with the disappearance of MMC and why this agency was present in PDL first thing ?

    1. Anne Guedes,

      Once the Operation Task debrief is read attentively, CEOP’s participation in the case becomes quite clear.

      Let us just give you one clue: “The first BIA resource to be deployed to Portugal was from CEOP. In the early stages of the investigation they were contacted by the FCO with a request to deploy to the Operation.”

      So, according to this, very clearly CEOP is deployed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, leaving the Leicestershire Constabulary, which the FCO handed this issue to, out of the loop.

      Why the request for this particular agency by the FCO?

      By the way, the debrief also says:

      “The first report to a UK agency in relation to the McCann case was made on 3 May 2007, in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal from the operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying. The duty officer informed the FCO in London on the same day, by which time a member of the McCann family had also made contact with the FCO.”

      Is anyone aware of this phone call from the “operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying” to the “FCO duty officer in Portugal” on May 3?

      And, why on earth would a holiday resort have the number of the “the FCO duty officer in Portugal”? Or even look it up?

    2. As per Anne Guedes request, comment placed here as it is a reply and not a stand-alone comment:

      AnneGuedes26 Jan 2018, 19:27:00
      This is certainly one of the obscure points of the debrief. Who could be the operator of the holiday resort if not John Hill ? John Hill was much too busy to call anyone except for his hierarchical superior in the UK.
      We know that Glen Pounder was a FCO duty officer in Lisbon (Second Secretary) and we know that he was contacted by Gonçalo Amaral at around 8am on the 4th of May, hence many hours after the FCO was contacted by GMC's brother in law.
      Very strange really : GA requested from GP basic and usual informations on the group that it seems he never got. No only GP didn't or couldn't provide those informations but he managed to arouse the CEOP's interest though MMC didn't disappear on line...

  8. "It is not intended for publication" at 26 Jan 2018, 19:49:00,

    We agree fully with all you have said. We have had that certainty even before the Lisbon Trial.

  9. Sorry to be picky, but according to the article, the specificity of K in Table 3 was 91%, which corresponds to a 9% false positive rate, right? However, even assuming 10% in the worst-case scenario, the probability of two false alarms would be 1%, the probability of three would be 0.1%, and so on... so your argument remains completely valid.

    1. Anonymous 26 Jan 2018, 19:57:00 ,

      Your math does not take into account results that we didn’t take into account when writing this post and those were the true and false negatives and the true positives.

      We didn’t take them into account, except when calculating those 97%, because in that part of the post we were only concerned answering the following question: were the ‘false positives’ expressed in the paper real false positives or not? Our answer was that they could be false false positives or true false positives, not being possible which they were but with the strong likelihood of being false false positives.

      But when calculating the percentage of ‘false positives’ reported (which were 4) one has to use as the universe the total samples from which the value of 4 was extracted: positives, false positives, negatives and false negatives, which were 138 samples. That gives a percentage of 2.898551%.

      Transporting into the HYPOTHESIS, which as you’ll see, shouldn’t be considered, when one ‘replaces’ Eddie by K in the Maddie case, one has to take into account when calculating statistics that then Eddie would have besides giving, statistically, false positives, he would have given positives (where there was cadaver scents and he would signal), true negatives (places where there was no cadaver scent and wouldn’t signal) and false negatives (places where there was cadaver scent and he wouldn’t signal), the said universe of 138.

      But if you have to be picky, please be in all aspects of the study. Then you have to wrap Maddie’s body in a blanket and have no part of her body contact directly any surface and take into account the PMI: “the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min”.

      This means that the statistic of the table should only apply ONLY to locations in which the body was between moment of death and 130 minutes after (were taking subject B as he’s the least favourable and 10 minutes exposure to carpet squares).

      From what we can deduct from what is said in the paper, the contamination after that produces no false positives. That means, the only questionable site that MAY have produced a false positive IN THE CASE of ‘replacing’ Eddie by K is the living room. All other locations, according to the scientific paper, produces no false positives.

      But in reality, it was Eddie AND Keela. A tandem team to eliminate any possibilities of false positives.

      Understand why we say the hypothesis placed shouldn’t have been placed?

      We only did it, to show very clearly that however the pros try to distort what is said in the paper, the best they CAN ASPIRE to achieve is to have ONE false positive, and in that HYPOTHETICAL case, they still have to justify all the other 100% reliable, scientifically certified TRUE POSITIVES.


      I don’t want to go into a technical fight, because I really think that the bulk of your reasoning is correct.

      We agree that my assumptions are not minimally realistic, they correspond to a very unfavorable scenario. I think we also agree that, even in such very unfavorable scenario, there is no way that an ERVD dog can mark multiple locations. I did overlook several aspects that should indeed be taken into account: contamination time, simultaneous markings of ERVD & Blood dogs, ... and would further decrease the probability down to a very, very small number. I am talking about the probability of marking several locations IF there is no cadaver trace at all (regardless of whether there is blood of a live human being or not).

      However, re the 3% vs 9% as a worst-case estimate of the false positive rate, I respectfully disagree with your calculation because the experimental “universe” contained samples contaminated with deceased tissue, which, by definition, do not impact the false positive rate. If the dog had been presented with more of those, the number of false positives would have been the same (4) and the false positive rate would remain the same too. Please remember that I work under the assumption that there was no cadaver trace at all in the crime scene, and evaluate (in a basic and conservative way) to which extent this assumption is contradicted by the evidence.

    3. Anonymous 27 Jan 2018, 11:26:00,

      Aren’t you being a little unflattering to the scientists who did the study?

      If they added 1,000 known uncontaminated samples, then the % of false positives would be indeed lower, much lower. But that would be manipulating final results, which we don't think is an acceptable practice within the scientific community.

      Statistics are based on a given and defined universe. It's calculation of a number of occurrences within that same universe.

      We are certain there was reasons for the ratio of contaminated squares v uncontaminated/contaminated by living ones presented to the dogs as those scientists have put their names to those numbers.

      We simply took them as they were and replicated to the Maddie case.

      Why wouldn’t we publish your comment? It’s your opinion and we respect it. You are presenting your arguments, we are presenting ours. That’s how normal and healthy discussions happen.

      By the way, we hope there’s another thing we agree on: the % of false positives (3% v 9%) only applies to the first location the body was. In all other locations there are no false positives.

      Basically, we are discussing that if Eddie were to be K, under the exact same circumstances and Maddie’s body was to be wrapped in a blanket and moved from it no later than 130 minutes after she died (otherwise the location would become a false-positive free area), been there without Keela, if the chances of Eddie returning a false positive would be of 9% or of 3%.

      As there was Keela, as we don’t think Maddie was wrapped up in blanket and do think that some parts of her body were in direct contact with the surface and we don’t think anyone timed how long she could stay in that first location and removed her from there before the limit was reached, we think that there is only one statistic that applies: 100% reliability.

    4. I did not speculate on what would have happened if the authors had used more uncontaminated samples. What I said is the false positive count would have remained the same if they had added CONTAMINATED samples (contaminated with deceased tissue). That is not speculation, neither it is in any way a judgment about their experimental design, it's just stating a fact. And I maintain that the reported specificity of 91% corresponds to a false positive rate of 9% as per the definition of specificity (

      For the rest, we are in agreement.

  10. "To be honest, it has baffled us for a long time how people failed to link Insane with Walkercan1000"

    There's nothing baffling about it - anyone with any intelligence can see that they are not the same. You are the only sufficiently unintelligent and gullible person to imagine a link.

  11. We have just been warned that Insane has responded on his blog to this post.

    Ignoring the insults and him continuing trying to mislead people (no response to his graveyard theory), in one thing he's absolutely correct about.

    We apologise to our readers for having missed a crucial sentence in the Oesterhelweg & others paper:

    "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs."

    This evidently means that K gave a false positives, they were not a reaction

    We will be correcting our post accordingly our “#6. False positive”, as soon as we can. We will copy current version as a Post Scriptum II, so everyone can see what we wrote when we believed what we believed in before that sentence being called out to our attention. A crucial sentence as we said,

    Insane seems not to understand 2 things:

    One is when we say "If we were proven wrong about false positives, we would have no problem in recognising it", we mean it. We will have no problem in correcting what has to be corrected.

    Meanwhile, as our lives are not just the blog, we would inform our readers that we continue to stand by that dogs do not return false positives. We maintain that these false positives are the responsibility of the criteria of the certification. But we’ll write about that.

    Two, is that between proved wrong on false positives under very specific and extreme circumstances and being able to prove the absolute reliability of Eddie and Keela in apartment 5A, we are like Eddie and Keela and are 100% reliable in wanting to prove that they are proved 100% reliable.

    Please read above the replies at 26 Jan 2018, 21:21:00, 27 Jan 2018, 12:20:00, which show even with these false positives from K under this experiment, the paper prove Eddie to be 100% reliable.

    Again, our sincere apologies for having missed that passage.

    1. Hi Textusa,Another great post on the reliability of ERVD Dogs.
      The True positivity is how Scotland Yard have remained silent on the Credibility of ERVD Crime dogs.
      The only result acceptable is to uncover the necessity for the Cover Up of Madeleine McCann's disappearance!
      The BBC have produce at least Four Crime Watch Investigations October 2013 and when it has been highlighted of actual facts missing from their re-enactments,they glossed over these points as though they mean Nothing,having doors open the wrong way,on not being able to see a little girl nearest to the Door,but could see the Twins Breathing through a nearly closed Door.
      Then have an Abductor sighted at 21.15 morph into 22.00 Creche Dad,Smithman,with Two E-fits,held back for Five years of an Investigation 2008,still anonymous identity,yet the UK Police have ruled him out of the abduction process?
      Then seek a Woman in Purlple,with a Paedophile Dead Husband,not Two males as described by DCI Andy Redwood,Sir Bernard Hogan,scenario Howe,"Bungling Burglars" Last Throw of the Dice,then A/C Mark Rowley departs as Metropolitan Police Commissioner,over to you Hot potato, Cressida?

    2. Having giving a thought on the subject, we have to apologise for our apology.

      Post remains as is. In fact, the above proves us to be even more right.

      Sometimes, when one strives for truth, one tends to react impetuously and that is what happened today. And for that we apologise.

      We will explain all here, in the comment section when we have time. After all, we're in a weekend.

    3. Yes you were right first time, Textusa.

      "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs."

      So the dogs did not react in any way to surfaces that had been in contact with living people, and reacted ONLY to those that had been contaminated with deceased human tissue/substances.

      A very interesting and well-constructed piece of research.

    4. We are quite chiding ourselves for 2 reasons. One, because we missed that passage on the Oesterhelweg paper and second because we jumped the gun, which we pride ourselves in not doing it. We keep telling people to let information to sink before reacting and we did just that.

      Why our brains missed out that passage has no excuse.

      If the phrase “searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs” meant, as Insane says it does, that there were no false positives to ANY and ALL contaminated by living sample squares” then why did the scientists include the words “contaminated by living” in the first and second lines of Table 1 – Signalling behavior in interconnection to the time of contamination?

      That table states clearly that there were 3 experimental false positives for “uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive”. Why not just say “uncontaminated”?

      After all, according to Insane’s reasoning, supposedly there were no false positives for ANY and ALL contaminated by living so why include that piece of information, the “contaminated by the living”, twice in the table?

      Because they are words which give the reader different type of information. Both speak of contaminated samples by living but they are speaking about different things.

      The key words are “control (alive) subjects” with particular emphasis on the word “control”.

      To understand what is in question we will use a diagnostics lab equipment. To make sure it’s producing valid results, it must first undergo a control procedure. A sample with a pre-known result is used and tested. If it returns a result within the acceptable range then it is good to go and tests on human samples is done.

      If on the other hand, it doesn’t return an acceptable result, the technical staff will introduce the modifications they think they should and another control is done. Only when the equipment passes these tests can the human samples be tested by it as the results it produces have been scientifically validated.

      This is for the reader to understand the concept of control within a scientific experiment: to certify that things are according to all required scientific standards so that the experiment at the end of it all, all can be validated scientifically.

      And it was during this initial procedure, the control before the experiment to make sure its results could be validated at the end, that no false positives happened on “of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects”.

      From what we have understood from the paper, the experiment used 40 squares:
      - 32 squares placed under [there goes your gaseous again, Insane] bodies, of which, 24 squares were exposed for 10 mins and 8 squares exposed for 2 mins;
      - 8 squares uncontaminated or contaminated by something living human “wet” which we don’t know what it was.

      During the experiment, K returned 4 false positives on the last 8. That is what is stated on the table. To “uncontaminated/contaminated by living samples”.

      However, before the experiment, as we said a control of it was made. It’s a scientific standard procedure. As this paper is a synopsis and not the detailed study and is meant to be read by the scientific community, it seems the authors did not find it necessary to detail this control. For some reason, they found it of interest only to say to say that of the contaminated by living squares used in the control, no false positives happened.

      From it, we see that other squares, other than the 40 mentioned above that were used exclusively for the experiment itself, were used in the control.

      This only reinforces what we have said, that the likelihood of the false positives within the experiment were for substances K was trained to signal. But as we said in post, that cannot be ascertained.

      We see no reason to alter a single word of the post because of this.

    5. To further clarify things, when we say above "a sample with a pre-known result is used and tested", that is called a control.

      That is what was shown to the dogs. Samples with known results, or in the case, squares with contamination (or absence of it) known to all present and were to participate in the experiment.

      That way, everyone could see what would be a correct reaction to each, everyone could clear up any doubt about what was the appropriate behaviour by the dog and by the handler to each one of the possible samples.

      To the control samples contaminated by the living, no dog, including K, returned a false positive.

    6. Stop making stuff up, Maria.

      Everyone has seen the paper, You are making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. You might not understand it, but some of your readers will, and I am putting the word out to other scientists in the Madeleine 'community' who are enjoying watching you making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself.

    7. Insane,

      Could you please let us see an explanation from a named scientist you have spoken to that we could share with readers?

      But please don't let this get you distracted from providing us with a link to where a Portuguese lab said there was no blood in apartment 5A after the dogs were there, like we asked you in our comment at 29 Jan 2018, 18:43:00.

    8. There is an expression, Maria, which says, "When you are in a hole, stop digging"

      You should have stopped digging a long time ago, dear.

      No lab returned a positive result for blood via any swab or any method. Do feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you think you can. (Hint - you can't)

      As for your request for a name, you can sincerely go fuck yourself, preferably with a porcupine, and with considerable vigor.

    9. (Hint - you can't). taken from above.

      This is a CLASSIC walkercan1000 twitter response.

  12. Anon,

    We have to censor your comment. You make an accusation against Not Textusa/Walkercan1000 which we cannot allow on the blog.

    Nigel Nessling was convicted of paedophilia. What the individual we call Insane does in his free time is none of our business, and we don't know if he has any skeletons in his closet which may "motivate" him and explain his incessant dedication to the hoax.

    That said, here is your comment after our censoring:

    "Anon has left a new comment on your post "The reliability of the cadaver dogs":

    Well have effectively ended the trolls career. He can stroll off and (censored) or whatever he does in his free time. What i cannot understand in all these years textusa is why the cover up? I agree with your theory re an accident...all the evidence is quite frankly all there(statement analysis,the dogs,rampant personality defects in parents)but why this extent of cover up? I know there has been behind the scene power struggles going on but why oh why this cover up over what looks like an accident. We know what happened to that poor child but the why is more important.

    Posted by Anon to Textusa at 28 Jan 2018, 13:28:00"

    1. Anon at 28 Jan 2018, 13:28:00,

      We suggest you google "swinging" together with our blog and see what we have said we believe to have been the reason.

      Also, this comment we put about a tweet made by Walkercan1000/Not Textusa may have been more revealing than it should:

      "Textusa30 Dec 2017, 22:38:00
      Is Insane saying more than he should?

      "Michael Walker‏@walkercan1000
      Things to take on a swinging holiday, 3 babies, friends, some old duffer. Make sure someone from Porton Down is there, IVF experts, Bell Pottinger, Mark Warner and a brother of Gordon Brown, an old fridge, some pork and meet in Pedville. LOL. Imbeciles. #mccann

      2:32 pm - 30 Dec 2017

    2. This is formal notification that your blog has been referred to Google for breach of their terms and conditions.

      Sanctions may include a warning posted on every page, removal of content, or the permanent closure of your blog and restriction of further services

    3. Interesting to see you react to something Walkercan1000 has publicly said, taking into account that you're not supposed to be him.

      And you reported us before our explanation as to why we don't have to change anything in the post even though we missed reading "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs" on the paper.

      Tut-tut on you Insane.

    4. It doesn't answer why though? Why a group of swinging non entities warranted that level of protection for swinging? I could understand the tapas crew wanting to hide their dirty secret but why involvement of highest echelons of government/msm/police? This compliance with the mc canns suggests they held aces up there sleeves against someone imo. I can't see the connection between swinging and the help they teceived from authority.

    5. Anon28 Jan 2018, 18:43:00,

      We recommend you read our post "Sex-shaming".

    6. Again i fail to see why it warranted the cover up? Tony blair...gordon brown....clarence mitchell...rebekah brookes....david cameron. What interest would they have in covering up the sexual shennanigans of a group of non entity doctors. There has to be more traction here...something that could bring down vested interests if exposed. A group of randy doctors do not warrant government protection. The protection runs to saville levels...

    7. Someone is trying hard to make it look like swinging is not a big deal...

    8. Anon,

      You seem to imply that you believe in what we call the paedo theory, the one that defends that Maddie, a 4 yr old girl, died at the hands of a nepiophile.

      Nepiophile is a word that speaks for itself. No need to add to it adjectives such as disgusting, vile, ignominious, repugnant, etc. It encapsulates all of them on its own.

      We don't believe that was the case as we have explained in various posts, one in particular "Paedo v Nepio".

      But, if it turns out your belief is true, then there are a lot of people, regular Joes and Janes, working in the Home Office, the Met, Leicester Pol, just to name a few, as well as British immigrants in Luz and Ocean Club workers at the time that will have to live with their consciences that they helped a nepiophile.

    9. No i believe she died as an accident...i just wonder,what gerry mc cann in particular, had over high ranking people that the cover up went ahead with their blessing...and through operation grange with its deceitful remit continues to this day. But paedos and nepios protect their own....

    10. Anon 28 Jan 2018, 21:38:00,

      Gerry and Kate McCann are, in our opinion, little fish in the pond. As the rest of the T7.

      Yes, we believe accident happened inside this group but it is the big fish that were in Luz having fun who needed to be protected.

      So they called in all the guns. Including (far from them only) the paedos.

      We don't think any nepios helped. For too disgusting to have around even if they could help.

    11. Aside from clement freud....who are these big they are as guilty as concealing the death of a child as much as the mc canns,tapas seven,mark warner staff et al? Were they present at the ocean club too? And if not where lies the association with the mc canns? Sorry if it appears i ask many question but i'm struggling to see the link between the tapas nine in pdl and the big hitters.

    12. Anonymous..i don't think swinging on its own is a BIG enough deal. Lets face it,the big hitters present in pdl would have been protected by their own in positions of power anyway...unless one was thrown to the wolves. I'm sorry i just believe this goes deeper than the sexual peccadiloes of elite people. I wish i knew what.

    13. Anon29 Jan 2018, 07:26:00

      Don’t you think that swinging was a plausible *initial* reason to simulate an abduction? The “big hitters” could have the Portuguese police under control with some appropriate political help, but what about the media? Who knows if some Portuguese journos would not find out about the swinging event and leak some names in the local press? Who is powerful enough to prevent that? Such scoop, even unlikely, would then be taken up in the UK and surely be devastating for some reputations, even more so if associated, loosely or not, with the death of a little girl, accidental or not.

      In this scenario, the simulated abduction would be part of a quickly decided fallback strategy in the aftermath of Maddie’s death, the main goal of which was to exfiltrate some relevant people “incognito”. It is also possible that the McCanns accepted to play their role in the story on the promise of some kind of reward for being “helpful”, despite having *initially* nothing serious to fear on the judicial level. This would partly explain their pretty arrogant attitude.

      Once the initial panic moment had passed, the motivation for the cover-up changed as a consequence of what this blog has called a “snowball effect”. With the PJ being less controllable than expected, there was some pressure to let the truth out, and that was probably possible without exposing the swinging, but not without exposing many people involved in the cover-up itself. And all this further escalated over time, with the government finally putting the whole reputation of UK on the line wth Operation Grange... Bloody dogs!

      BTW, this is personal speculation. My view is clearly influenced by this blog, but may not be endorsed by the blog team.

    14. "Anon" 24 Feb 2018, 13:17:00

      Thank you for such a CLARIFYING reply.

      As usual, we can always count on you to clarify things, as you'll see in a forthcoming post.

  13. Regarding 'cover-ups' below is a link to a Sonia Poulton interview from last year where she discusses amongst other things her investigation into the McCann case. At one point she states that replies received from Freedom of Information Act requests via police forces imply "National Security" reasons for not disclosing or answering questions. Is this what Amaral has said in the past?

    1. The reasons not to reply in FOI requests are often surrealistic, at least are expressed so. It sometimes looks as if some horrible stuff had to be concealed. I'm afraid that the repliers' objective is mainly to built around their institutions a crucial importance they don't have.

  14. We inform our readers that we have deleted the document from the post, in our #8 - The document.

    We have done that because of threats coming from Not Textusa/Walkercan1000.

    We certainly don't want Insane to succeed in having our blog closed for copyright reasons. The link remains, so readers can continue to read it.

    He’s really after the truth isn’t he? NOT

    Thank you for understanding.

  15. Gemma is back on the Maddie case:

    Tweet #26:

    “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
    A reminder of how cadaver dogs reacted to the McCann’s rental car and apartment in Portugal (1/2)
    11:30 am - 28 Jan 2018

    Tweet #27:

    “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
    A reminder of how the McCanns reacted to a question about the reaction of the cadaver dogs (2/2)
    11:33 am - 28 Jan 2018

    It seems our post was very opportune.

  16. Times of despair, mixed with anger make one reach discover new lows where no lows were thought possible.

    In his latest rambling Not Textusa/Walkercan1000 has said this about us:

    "You have given no reason why a 12 year old local girl would make up such a story. Your fanciful, abusing stories that she was ordered to do so by adults who were sexually abusing her is tantamount to harassment of the child. Her account is also supported by other witness testimony".

    He's referring to TS. These were the posts we did about the girl:

    We will leave it the readers to judge for themselves if we have EVER accused anyone of abusing sexually TS.

    As was objective of this post: “The second [objective is] to allow a glimpse of the kind of people that those of us trying to find the truth have opposing us, known in the Maddie world as ‘pro-McCanns’, people who fiercely defend the hoax beyond any reason, shame or decency.”

    The fact that we are not referring all other accusations, doesn't mean we agree we are being rightfully accused. The quality of rebuttal is too poor.

    However it allows how Not Textusa and Walkercan1000 share so many opinions on the case. It's as if they share the same body and mind.

    1. Note, it seems that Not Textusa/Walkercan1000 has published a new post, in a feeble attempt to bury the post in which he has made the accusation above.

      In that post we make inconvenient questions which it seems he has realised it's best to take the spotlight off them.

      But on this new post, just as his opening commentary of rebuttal:

      "What - referred to as sweaty and corpulent and sued by the McCanns?"

      He's referring to Mr Amaral.

      Could he be more Walkercan1000? No, he couldn't.

    2. I’m surprised he stopped at the sweaty, corpulent part!
      What a lunatic.

    3. We note that this new post is him resurfacing his rebuttal to our post "TRUTH".

      We do recommend people read it as then, we were already exposing Jenny Murat.

    4. Whoever the character is or isn’t, he’s focusing on neglect = Mcs bad, but dogs wrong - alive child taken and cadaver dog made lots of errors that just happened to be related only to them?

    5. Insane’s position is simple as I deduce - pretend to be an anti, professing to dislike Mcs and believes dogs are useful but they make mistakes. So:
      The Mcs are neglectful parents
      M was the victim because of their negligence
      The dogs made errors. Eddie detected a waft of decomposition which could be something like old bones from the backyard.
      Blood wasn’t detected by either lab, so it means Keela was wrong. Therefore:
      Blood dogs (who are used to detect blood unable to be detected by sight or standard tests) don’t actually succeed in this task.
      Ergo - M was abducted.


    6. Anonymous 29 Jan 2018, 18:22:00,

      Thank you!

      Quite a good description of his objectives, we would say. Plant the seed of doubt on Eddie's reliability (who simultaneously can detect wafting airborne particles from a medieval backyard on which apartment 5A apparently was on BUT was an EVRD dog, and you know, EVRD dogs do give, although rare, false positives).

    7. Anonymous 29 Jan 2018, 18:22:00

      You say something above that shows very clear what a LIAR Not Textusa/Walkercan1000 is:

      “Blood wasn’t detected by either lab, so it means Keela was wrong.”

      Labs, plural. A position defended by both Not Textusa and Walkercan1000. They both say that the Portuguese lab has determined there was no blood in apartment 5A.

      He, no use to say they as they are one and the same, basis this certainty on the following from the files:

      “There proceeded the search for possible blood traces in all of the apartment, using a variable- wave light source appropriate for the task.This search resulted in the detection of several spots having a red-brown tone that suggested blood, which were subjected to a "Kastle-Mayer" peroxidise test, the result obtained, in all cases, being negative.

      There also proceeded the observation and search for blood traces inside the apartment using a chemical product to find latent blood traces. In the application of the referred product no results characteristic of the presence of blood traces were found.”

      This comes from this page of the PJ Files:

      In it one can clearly see that the pictures are of the kids’ bedroom, where initially all attention was focused.

      The exam was dated May 4 2007.

      Yes, it does say that the search was made “in all of the apartment” but as we know, what Keela signalled was not visible to the eye and most likely wasn’t tested with the attention and detail as was the bedroom.

      The visible spots, were tested. Only the visible spots.

      Under the penalty of admitting of being a liar, we ask Insane to provide a link whereby the INML or any other Portuguese lab has stated that no blood was found on the stains in the living-room (those detected after the dogs, so long after the quoted above) and which were swabbed by Portuguese professionals but under specific instructions and supervision of the British.

    8. It’s indeed curious that the dogs positively detected blood and cadaver MANY months after the apartment was combed by the PJ for the same components. Floating or wafting molocules of cadaver is of course derisory— and FSS’s double speak and re-writing of its reports (it is blood, it’s not blood) is a perversion of Justice.

    9. Insane, at 29 Jan 2018, 22:54:00 has responded to this with following:

      “No lab returned a positive result for blood via any swab or any method. Do feel free to produce evidence to the contrary, if you think you can. (Hint - you can't)”

      First, saying no lab returning a positive result is different from saying that a negative result was returned.

      Second, saying “The ''blood spatter'' tests were all conducted by the Portuguese, dimwit”, as he has said in his blog, are tests on the stains found AFTER the dogs were in the apartment and these were done by the FSS.

      The tests done by the Portuguese forensics refer to May 4, 2007 as we have shown.

      Insane has admitted to be a liar.

    10. And by the way, Insane, we have never said that any lab has returned a positive to blood.

      We have said that the FSS says it cannot determine (as if) from which body fluid the "blood spatter" stains were from.

      If it could not determine that, then it cannot rule out any, including blood.

    11. To Anonymous 21:27
      There's nothing curious with a dog detecting cadaver residue scent after 3 months in a closed place. The VOCs don't remain in the air, they enter porous stuff. Under certain conditions they volatilise again. It has been studied that they could stay for one year, depending on the quality and quantity of the porous stuff.

    12. Maria, did you attend school at any point in your childhood, or were you dragged up in the wild by wolves?

      The test results were negative, dear, using all three methodologies. A parsnip could understand this.

      I will say this for you very, very slowly.


      What the FSS said was they could not determine the source of any LCN-DNA. They couldn't determine when it was deposited, or by whom, or how it was deposited.

      If you actually read the results of each wall swab they predominantly returned very low levels of cellular material and meagre amounts of LCN-DNA from multiple contributors. The most likely source is therefore trace amounts of epithelial cells. Not blood. Other tests for blood were negative.

      Now, bugger off. Your lack of education is a cross you will just have to bear.

    13. Provide link please. Thank you.

    14. You require a link to the PJ files?

      Well, I guess that makes sense - you have never read them


    16. That’s a lot of skin, or human tissue spattered across the walls. Perhaps it was shedding time? (Most likely)

    17. So KEELA WAS WRONG (also know how to use capitals) was she?
      The dogs’ responses are unreliable.
      They gave false positives
      Or detected an ancient graveyard?
      There you have it folks! As a certain person would say.

    18. Anonymous 30 Jan 2018, 10:53:00,


      Another thing to add to the Village of the Damned: the place where all dogs, EVRD and blood, just give keep on giving false positives!

    19. Insane knows how to phrase things
      FSS said they couldn’t identify the material which yielded DNA as coming from a particular source - such as blood - using standard testing methods. The apartment had been cleaned, so standard testing was likely to be compromised.
      Keela demonstrated that blood had been in the area she indicated, but the FSS only took into account the results of tests they applied.
      That’s why he can say no blood was found, as in was in the Burgau apartment, as the scientists at FSS couldn’t get results from standard tests for blood.
      That doesn’t mean there was no blood. His statement that it was epithelial tissue isn’t supported by anything in PJ files either.
      Keela didn’t alert to tissue.
      That’s why it’s important for him to focus on any studies which say dogs can give false positives, no matter how small that percentage is, no matter what the success rate of Grime’s dogs was, no matter what the chances are of 5a being on the site of an ancient graveyard, no matter what the odds are on alerts only connected to the McCanns.

      It’s important for him to maintain anything that allows for a living child to be removed from that apartment, facilitated by the neglectful behaviour of the parents.
      Look at everything he says and compare it to that scenario.
      It allows Eddie to be accurate in his field, just alerting to cadaver from another source and Keela alerting as a false positive - presumably in the car also, according to his theory.
      And Eddie with the car -not sure he explains that away very convincingly.
      Was that a false positive too?

  17. It must be said, that when discussing forensics one thing is quite important by itself: the FSS report.

    Why? Because scientists have put their names to a scientific paper which they knew was far from being truthful. Starting with John Lowe.

    A report that says a sample is either from Maddie or from her parents, so according to his opinion, says John Lowe, doesn’t come from the McCann family.

    This to say, we are certain that Insane, unlike us, has scientific support to help him out. These people, indeed experts on the subject, know better than anyone how to mystify, distort and nitpick.

    Pity life for them has taken a turn to make them use their knowledge to hide the circumstances of the death of a 4 yr old girl. It’s them who have to live with their conscience, not us.

    It’s them who have to come on the internet every day to see if anyone is closer to the truth and have to spend time and knowledge to come up with the best technical, scientific way to stop that from happening.

    Now, Insane has decided to pick on the difference of calibration v control when we used our diagnostic equipment example. He says, as if that was important, that we are speaking of calibration and not control.

    Let’s then clarify this.

    Diagnostic lab equipment is calibrated before it is used. Not because of its everyday use, just to be prepared to be used.

    The equipment processes tests. These processes are designed to test human samples, so the results they produce are of great importance. The quality assessments they undergo at the factory where they are produced are understandably rigorous.

    So, readers can understand, and we’re over-simplifying here, but to very clear about this as Insane likes to nitpick, a test strip that one holds when doing a pregnancy test can be bought in a chemist store.

    The human sample is the urine. When the human sample contacts the test strip it produces a chemical reaction, in this case a change in colour, and that change in colour is the physical representation of a diagnostic result.

    In the example above there is the diagnostic equipment is just the strip and the reason why we are warned its reliability is not assured.

    In a lab, much more complex equipment is what makes the contact between a test and a human sample to produce a chemical reaction which in turn provides a result.

    These tests come in boxes. They are dated and are identified. Meaning that each box of a test has a different identification number from a box of that same test but produced the next day.

    Whenever an equipment is used (meaning that it has been calibrated) it has to be controlled for the specific batch of tests that are about to be used in it against the human samples that are going to be diagnosed.

    The equipment is calibrated, what is being done is to control if that the specific batch of tests will be reliable and produce results with the required quality necessarily demanded.

    That test, picked randomly from the box of tests and in every way the same way as all other tests in that box. It is then used against a sample, which is called a control, which as we mentioned has been designed to produce a result within a certain range.

    But imagine that the lab has to run 25 samples of blood through the equipment, and each box of tests for blood has only 20 of them.

    One would use box XYZ. Take one XYZ test for blood, use it to control the ‘binomial equipment-XYZ tests’, and if it passed, start to use the other 19 XYZ tests to diagnose the blood samples. One would test 19 of them with the XYZ box as one of the tests was used to control the equipment.

    There would be 6 blood samples left to diagnose.

    One would then open box ABC. Because it’s a different batch, one has to control the equipment again, now for the binomial ‘equipment-ABC tests’. Take one ABC test for blood urine for the control, run it with the control, and if it passed, test the other 6 samples left to go.

    Calibrated equipment was always used in the controls.

    When scientists wrote the word “control” on the Oesterhelweg paper, they meant control.

    1. Please note that in the example above, in both boxes XYZ and ABC, only 19 of the 20 tests they contain provide scientific results for human samples.

      The other 1 is used for control purposes.

      Also note, that if something didn't go according to established values in the control, other tests from the box would be used for the control.

    2. Hi Textusa,so 15;19 markers do not count,with four components indetermined to belong to Madeleine McCann and her parents,(John Lowe)not her siblings then,as keeps being pointed to a possible means of contamination of the samples,explainable account,Clarence Mitchell,moment?
      I wonder why Walkercan1000 or insane,never mentions as to Why the FSS had chosen to give the Portugal PJ 21 days to comply with the"Destruction of DNA,LCI"samples from a still missing child?
      what is the Lab going to use to determine any future DNA,LCI,now just a Pillow and the parents DNA,as they were to destroy the previous DNA/LCI on Health grounds,care to offer any assistance,Operation Grange,Scotland Yard,the only time we allowed samples of Evidence to be Destroyed,Madeleine McCann missing person case?

    3. Hi Textusa,Lesley Anne Denton FSS report,quotes,Disposal of Blood samples,Walker1000can.

    4. Hi Textusa, my husband has used labs(not forensic) all his working life. I can tell you this that companies spend a small fortune on equipment and keeping them in good working order. Procedures and controls are used for good reasons whether it be a crime lab,pharmaceutical lab or just normal industry they provide essential information, results and problem solving for any issues that can arise. Companies would not waste time and money using them unless they provided results and feedback.

  18. My thoughts
    When the concept for the experiment originated, how were dogs chosen?
    Their work experience is noted, but were they chosen at random or were the methods used to train them the same and they were chosen for this reason?
    Or just chosen because they were only available dogs?
    Was there a reason why only dog K had some false positives and negatives on the 10 minute exposure squares?
    Having read a paper written in 2011 on training aids for cadaver dogs, the different training methods already used for the (large number) of dogs now using new training materials were taken into consideration.
    And some results that were unexpected were attributed to cross- contamination of training materials.
    Some dogs were removed from the experiments as they proceeeded.

    The study you used showed impressive results, even for dogs not working in tandem. Focusing on any small failure to try and prove Grime’s dogs made errors in only McCann related areas and items is desperate indeed.
    Now waiting to see if Gemma lives up to producing her article by the end of January.

    1. Yeah she did say this month, but it looks like it will be next month now
      @gemmaod1 "Blood-soaked body of Dublin-born #MadeleineMcCann private eye found at his Surrey mansion. This case gets murkier by the minute. My investigation in @VillageMagIRE will be published in next month’s edition with new revelations and questions"
      Wish we didn't have to wait. I'm on tenterhooks.

  19. Tomorrow then.....after that takes us to start of February....which is not the end of January.


  20. Not Textusa: "Nothing 'wet' was used. The paper makes that very clear"

    Paper: "The education and training the dogs received consisted primarily of searching for ‘‘wet’’ materials such as blood, body fluid and muscle tissue"

  21. "Not for publishing" at 30 Jan 2018, 18:19:00,

    Thank you for your assessment. We think we have a pretty good knowledge on the subject you have mentioned.

  22. Walkercan1000/Not Textusa has said on Twitter: “LOL. Grime was never a special agent nor ever even an FBI employee.”

    It seems the FBI Speciality Dog Unit has a picture with a certain Special Agent Martin Grime.

  23. We have one other question for Insane, the self-proclaimed scientist.

    As our readers know by now, he, according to himself, has superior knowledge on all subjects, but particularly on what concerns blood and cadaver scent.

    He has condescended to explain to us, the ignorant masses, how EXACTLY (according to him that is) the Oesterhelweg paper experiment happened:

    “Here is how the study was designed:

    There is one consignment of tiles, split into three batches. All are kept in sealed, airtight containers

    One batch is the control batch. Nothing is done to this batch at all. This is the equivalent of a placebo in a drug trial.

    A second batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a cadaver, for either 2 or 10 minutes. We'll call these the 'contaminated by cadaver' batch.

    A third batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a living person, in identical conditions - which in this case means wrapped in a cotton blanket, any punctures etc covered (full description is in the paper)

    The squares are then all sealed in individual jars.

    So - some jars contain a square exposed to cadaver odour
    some jars contain a square exposed to odour from a living person
    some jars contain a square which has not been exposed to either

    The dogs were then allowed to perform a number of searches and the results recorded

    The dog should only react to those jars containing a square exposed to cadaver odour.
    However, in the study, there were four false positive alerts to the last category - uncontaminated squares, exposed to neither odour, living or dead.”

    Remember, these are his words, not ours.

    Taking into account that, according to him batch one was the control batch with nothing on them at all – “One batch is the control batch. Nothing is done to this batch at all. This is the equivalent of a placebo in a drug trial” – was it possible for the paper to say “Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs”

    How is it possible to have false positives from something that didn't exist, according to Insane?

  24. ''How is it possible to have false positives from something that didn't exist, according to Insane?''

    Er - that's what a false positive is, you waste of human skin. A positive reaction where one should not have occurred, ie. the dog alerted to the target scent, but the jar contained an uncontaminated square.

    Maria, if you don't even know what a false positive is, why are you writing about it?

    1. Insane,

      The question is not about explaining what is a false positive.

      It's about you explaining why there were CONTROLS (alive) subject, when all controls were of batch 1, the one made up of absolutely uncontaminated squares, according to you.

    2. Look, you evidently don't understand the paper or the method, even though I put it in layman's language for you.

      I can't make up for your lack of education, Maria, or crack open your skull and put a brain in it.

      You get no more help. You will just have to come to terms with being stupid.

    3. And you Not Textusa are nothing. Absolutely no thing. A voice rampaging through discussion but not offering anything of value. You are worthy of pity.

  25. Another question for Insane.

    You say "A third batch is exposed to non-direct contact with a living person, in identical conditions - which in this case means wrapped in a cotton blanket, any punctures etc covered (full description is in the paper)"

    Could you please quote from the paper where the living person were contaminated in identical conditions as was done with the deceased?

    As far as we could read, with the deceased the paper says: “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.”

    With the living it says: “Additionally, living individuals who denied having had any contact with deceased tissues served as control subjects and contaminated an additional eight carpet squares.”

    Could you please indicate in which passage does the paper say, with a full description, that the living individuals were contaminated the squares when “wrapped in a cotton blanket, any punctures etc covered”?

  26. This is all futile. By using 2 different dogs, one trained on cadaver and one on blood, martin grimes ensured diversity in the findings (2 independent forms of detection), which overcomes any form of single source error.
    Both dogs independently detected the common areas of blood and cadaver behind the sofa and in the hire car.
    Insane has no counter argument in place against diverse sources of detection.

  27. The blood dog has a double utility, detecting minute blood (potential identification of DNA) and allowing to determine whether the cadaver dog alerted for (decaying) blood or for cadaver residues (in case of absence of remains).

  28. Those pesky dogs. Still, keeps the defenders busy earning a crust. You have to wonder at the depths some will go to to cover up the death of a young lass. Must be a very important box that needs to be kept firmly shut.

  29. Two wrongs don't make a right unless your in camp McCann land.The constant boo hooing and dissing of the two dogs being wrong and not finding anything does the actual opposite. By trying to discredit the dogs all they have done is draw attention to how clever and highly trained the dogs were each with a different skill set that hit the same spots for blood and cavader. Dogs don't lie and these dogs did not get it wrong, they got it so right the pro's have been screaming for ten years to how wrong they were to anyone that will listen. Newsflash for the abduction promoter's Pandora's box is well and truly open more and more people know about it there's no way to slam it shut, we may never find out the truth but the t9 especially the kids who played no part will have this linger around them like a bad smell and I hope they give their parents hell for dragging them into the scam.

  30. I see the pseudo intellectual 'insane' has now crashed and burned in his purile attempt to present an argument to textusa regarding medical testing (single point failure). Even a aggressor like insane knows that the basis of all system reliability ( nuclear, aerospace) is based on diversity of detection. Eddie and keela represented diverse methods of detection of the death of madeleine maccann in apartment 5a.
    Tiocfaid ar la!

    1. Ask the dogs sandra....
      Hey gerry, TFA! Or your even your precious time has come.

  31. Textusa,

    To make sure that I am not getting lost in the discussion, is there an agreement that the false positives reported in the Oesterhelweg et al paper all originated from uncontaminated samples?

    That is my understanding. It would imply that the dogs never reacted to live blood in these particular experiments - correct?

    As to why K gave false positives, the authors did not venture into any explanation. However, from Table 1, we can infer that K performed 23 searches and, considering that “Every sixth search was carried out without any contaminated material” (section 2), it can be deduced that K gave at least one positive signal in every search. Speculating, could it be that K felt compelled by the experimental protocol to find something in every search? It does not explain the remaining ‘10 min’ false positive, though, but casts some doubt on the likelihood of ‘uncontaminated’ false positives in real-world situations.

    1. Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 13:54:00,

      Where did you get the idea there was an agreement that "is there an agreement that the false positives reported in the Oesterhelweg et al paper ALL originated from uncontaminated samples" (our caps)?

      That was Insane's position, by the way.

      We have given our opinion on what we think: the paper is unclear from which samples the registered false positives came from. If from uncontaminated ones or from ones contaminated by living.

      We would like you to note that we have considered in the post the possibility of them coming from only uncontaminated samples and have given our opinion about it.

      Plus, the doubts you raise (in case K gave false alarms only to uncontaminated samples) raises no doubts at all as, if replicated to apartment 5A.

      For there to be doubt, then that would not only mean that Maddie was wrapped in a blanket, no part of her body had direct contact with the floor and that she was removed not later than 130 minutes after death - all we are certain didn't happen - as Keela wouldn't have been used and she was.

      On all other locations/objects the dogs signalled there would be no doubts at all even in the case K only signalled uncontaminated samples in the false positives registered.

    2. I got that idea from the sentence: "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs".

      What can this mean other than saying that the dogs signaled either samples contaminated by cadaver (true positives) or uncontaninated samples, but no sample contaminated by living person? Please explain.

      I thought the debate with Insane was about what the paper calls "control", on which he is clearly wrong, but I believe he is right about the above - unless I misread the sentence, or the whole paper.

      Besides, the doubt I raised is about the relevance of the 3 false positives in the 'Uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive' line of Table 1, for the reasons that I have tried to explain. It is not a doubt about the dog's reliability, much to the contrary.

    3. Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 15:35:00

      Please read our reply of 29 Jan 2018, 12:45:00.

      For your reading to be correct, in our opinion, then it makes no sense for the scientists to have put together the false positives (and also false negatives) into a same line on Table 1.

      If there were no false positives to contaminated by living, then the words "contaminated by living" are there unnecessarily.

      That was our logic and the reason for the debate which was about the importance of the word "control" in the sentence you mention.

    4. Sorry, I had missed your comment of 29 Jan 2018, 12:45:00.
      Now that I have read it, I understand why we do not concur.

      My personal opinion (which is only an opinion since I have no link with the authors, but please consider that I have long-term experience in scientific research) is that your explanation is implausible for two reasons.

      First, it would mean that the authors did not describe their experimental protocol in detail, which is not scientifically acceptable and would have prompted the reviewers to ask them to revise the paper accordingly (since this is a peer-reviewed journal).

      Second, the preliminary control procedure you assume does not appear to be necessary for the sake of a statistical analysis that answers the questions the authors addressed. I very much doubt that they complexified their experimental protocol and sacrificied data (extra squares) if it was not needed.

      All was needed was to include both uncontaminated samples and samples contaminated by living tissue in order to rule out the trivial concerns that dogs may respond in the absence of stimulus, or may indiferently respond to dead or live human scent. Both uncontaminated and contaminated by living samples could be considered as distinct types of "controls", this is a minor terminology issue in my opinion.

    5. Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 17:30:00,

      We accept your interpretation. We will reply as soon as we are able to.

    6. Please let me add to the above that I believe the reason for writing "Uncontaminated or contaminated by living" in the Table to be simply that the authors did not want to imply that false positives can only arise from uncontaminated samples. The fact that no false positive from contaminated samples was observed (if my interpretation is correct) is an outcome of the experiment that must not be confused with an a priori assumption. By doing this, they stress that false positives from live scent may occur in other experiments.

    7. Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 18:00:00,

      We agree with what you have said up until the point of when you said "By doing this, they stress that false positives from live scent may occur in other experiments".

      It's not that we disagree with you, however having some experience with misinterpretations of words, less experienced eyes may not give the appropriate importance to the words "may" and "experiment" in that sentence.

      Reading them lightly one could be led to think that there are other experiments where there are registers of false positives to substances (there may be, we only are not aware of any and if you do know of any, we would appreciate very much to know so we could understand under what circumstances they happened).

      Your words imply the scientists are excluding the impossibility of happening (who knows what the future holds?) and not they have happened. If we’re wrong on this, please do correct us.

      Also, the brain captures the words “false positives from live scent may occur” more than it does “other experiments”.

      Like with the Oesterhelweg et al experiment, in experiments and training there are specific circumstances which the probability of them happening in a real-life scenario, or best call it professional scenario, are nil or so near nil, they shouldn’t be considered.

    8. What I meant precisely is that, if the same experiment was replicated (same experimental design, dogs with similar training and experience, etc. ), some false positives from live scent may be observed. At least, the authors have no basis to reject this possibility.

      Again, this is my interpreation of their text. But, for sure, they did not mean to speculate on what how the dogs behave under different experimental conditions.

      Unfortunately, I don't know anything about this particular subject and cannot direct you to other studies of interest.

    9. Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 18:48:00

      You have given a different interpretation from us to words "control (alive) subjects” in the sentence "Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs" of the Oesterhelweg paper (OP).

      In the post we said that we believed this contamination from control subjects to have been from squares contaminated with the purpose to do a scientific control of the experiment.

      As we said, it was our opinion, that this was done to make sure that the results of the experiment could be validated. The dogs were shown samples, squares contaminated with cadaver scent, by living and not contaminated, equal to those they would be shown in the experiment.

      The idea being to replicate all during this stage so the scientists could observe and identify all behavioural patterns the dogs displayed when presented with these “control squares” and allow before the experiment itself, for questions to be asked and so eliminate any doubt about was to be expected from the dogs.

      We called this the control stage.

      As we also explained, we have based our opinion on the fact that on Table 1, there’s an undifferentiated category of false positives from samples “uncontaminated/contaminated by living”, which told us the false positives could be from both.

      With that interpretation, we said there had been no false positives to squares contaminated by living during this “control phase” but that there could have been false positives to squares contaminated by living the experiment itself. We said could because there would be 3 hypotheses where the false positives could have come from: all from uncontaminated, all from contaminated by living or from both.

      You have given a different interpretation to this and you have consubstantiated your opinion.

      You based it on 2 things, one, that it would be scientifically unacceptable not to detail the experimental protocol, in which the control phase would have to be included, and two, that for you the undifferentiated “uncontaminated/contaminated by living” of Table 1 was a minor terminology issue.

      You have argued both these points very well in your comment at 31 Jan 2018, 17:30:00.
      As we said in the post “on this subject as in others, [we] read and educate ourselves as much as we can, apply logic and come to conclusions. Never forgetting our ignorance. Our conclusions may be right or they may be wrong. When we are explained that we are wrong, or find that by ourselves, we have absolutely no qualms about recognising it and correcting our hand.”

      So, with you input and evident scientific background we will accept that ANY and ALL false positives in the experiment were from uncontaminated squares.

      Does this prove our statement “dogs never give false positives” wrong?

      No, we don’t think it does. On the contrary, we think it reinforces it.

      Like it was required in the OP, we would define what we consider to be a false positive: a dog smelling cheese and “saying” it’s wine.

      For us that is what is a false positive.

      As we are firm believers that nature is as near infallible as it can be and that evolution represents a positive crescendo, meaning as time progresses, dogs’ noses will get more accurate.

      Means they have a more accurate nose now than they had a thousand years ago and a thousand years from now will have one much better than theirs today.

      That doesn’t invalidate that dogs’ noses aren’t absolutely amazing right now.

      They are and the topic in question proves it. Science hasn’t been able to determine the structure of the fluid that the human on decomposing produces that releases the human cadaver scent but the dogs are able to identify it with clarity.


    10. (Cont.)

      We all have different sizes and weights, different ratios of fat in our bodies, so we can only imagine the recipe for the cocktail of chemical elements can vary significantly from one individual to another (imagining this being the main reason why technology cannot “pinpoint” a structure) but within that wide range cocktail there’s something that is commonly characteristic to us humans which science has failed to determine but that the dogs have.

      This to say that we consider the link between the dog’s nose and its brain to be infallible. When a dog’s nose picks up cheese, his brain ALWAYS give the same reaction as when he smelled cheese before. And he’ll never confuse cheese with wine.

      That’s why we say, and maintain that dogs do not give false positives.

      But a tracking dog does not say that cheese is cheese or that wine is wine. A tracking dog says “I’m reacting to that scent the human has taught me to react in the way the human taught me to react whenever my nose comes across it”.

      Here, there’s the human factor. What introduces the error in this equation.

      We have said before that false positives can only be done via baiting. One has to know what one is showing the dog so that one can state with certainty that the dog has given or not a positive signal.

      The OP experiment was baiting, dogs reacting to pre-known samples.

      We also said that baiting only happened in training and we maintain that as an experiment is a situation of training, as the dog is not using it’s nose to track the unknown but rather having the binomial nose-training being tested for certain circumstances.

      But let’s focus on the OP experiment and its false negatives by uncontaminated samples.

      Stating the obvious, that excludes contaminated samples.

      No false positives came from other substances and it PROVES that all positives came only and only from cadaver scent.

      So, the other consequence one can withdraw from this, is that K, in this experiment, was a dog reacting to nothing. To nada, zilch, kaput, niente as the Portuguese say.

      So, if he gave a false positive for nothing, one could say that K just gives false positives at his convenience, anytime, anywhere. If one thinks this is ridiculous, as one should, then one must conclude that something, before a square with nothing, triggered his reaction.

      Outside nothing and excluding other substances, it can only be because of a behavioural shortfall, because of a training one or, as is most likely, because of a mixture of both.

      You suggest one: “could it be that K felt compelled by the experimental protocol to find something in every search?”.

      We agree that it’s a possibility.

      We will add another possibility, the breed. Note that B and L are Mallinois and K is a Herder.

      About this we will again quote a document which Anne Guedes brought to our blog: “Interestingly, all False Alarms were made by Belgian Shepherd dogs; the reason for this is unclear, however the time these dogs took to complete their line-up tasks suggests a decrease in level of attention.”

      Not saying it was, just stating that as no dog reacts to nothing, human error in the training has to be what explains the false positives to uncontaminated squares.

      So, as we said in the post, K should be uncertified and all his previous results be questioned.

      If the reasons why he gave the false positives to uncontaminated squares could be identified, and he could be retrained, he should do so. And these lessons learned be applied to the training of future EVRD dogs.


    11. (Cont)

      But let’s look at some of the specifics of this case.

      The remit of the experiment was to answer this: “the question remained on how long deceased tissue or a deceased body have to be in contact with a material, such as the mattress, for the scent to be detectable by cadaver dogs.”

      It was a response to a specific request which resulted from a specific crime.

      Was the OP experiment to test blood and cadaver dogs in general or just to test these 3 specifically as they were the ones involved in the crime in question? We don’t know.

      But we know that meant the emphasis was put on the timing a material had to be in contact with a corpse for the scent to be detected. And that there was not to be any direct contact between the contaminated surface (in the crime the mattress) and the corpse as it in the crime scene we imagine there were at least sheets separating both.

      To simulate this separation, that’s why the corpses were wrapped in a blanket.

      The experiment was not about determining on which conditions or percentages the dogs gave false positives.

      Having the experiment the remit it had, it presented the dogs with a scenario that was totally unlikely to happen in real life, which was that of a recently deceased body in indirect contact with a surface for ONLY for 2 or 10 minutes.

      In the crime scene in question the direct contact between the corpse and the mattress had been obstructed by at least the sheets, in the experiment, it was the blanket that represented that obstruction.

      Transporting this to the reality of apartment 5A, and never forgetting that B and L gave no false positives under the abnormal circumstances described above and imagining that it was K instead of Eddie, that would mean that a false positive would have to have been a behavioural one and not him mistaking a scent for another.

      That is the new certainty that with your interpretation the paper now gives us: if in the OP no positive signal came from a contaminated by living sample (it came either from cadaver scent or in a very low percentage from nothing), likewise any possible false negative from Eddie – repeat, replicating the OP experiment – was only on the first location and only due to behavioural or training shortfalls.

      That reinforces the possibility of Eddie having been 100% reliable in the first location the body was (which would be the living-room) and it’s factual that he was 100% reliable on all other locations/objects.

      Add Keela to this equation and its factual that he was 100% reliable even on the first location.

      Note, and it’s important to repeat this over and over again, the equation has a Maddie covered with a blanket, never having touched with any part of her body the floor and timed up to when she could lie in that location, which is nowhere near the scenario that indeed happened.

      Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 18:48:00 , inputs like yours enrich our blog and help us correct our path, so we thank you very much for it and are eager to hear your opinion on what we have just written and correct anything that we find that we should.

    12. Thank you for considering my arguments with objectivity. I fully agree with what you have just written.

      I was also the commenter challenging you on the "worst-case specificity" (Anonymous 26 Jan 2018, 19:57:00 and following discussion). I did this, not to disprove the conclusions of your post as you certainly figured out, but to help making the underlying reasoning totally bulletproof in my opinion.

      NotTextusa aka Insane seems to be someone with some scientific background who has seized an opportunity to use it in order to discredit your blog.

      Strictly speaking, the Oesterhelweg et al paper contradicts the claim that "dogs never give a false positive". However, beside that the study targets what appear to be extremely difficult detection tasks, the simple fact that all the false positives arised from a single dog and from uncontaminated material raises a strong suspicion that these were indeed behavioral false positives in the sense you have defined.

      As a side note, I also puzzled about what the authors called '2 min false positives' and '10 min false positives'. This is something they should have clarified in the text. I initially subscribed to your interpretation, but the counts do not seem to add up in Table 1. I speculate that the authors might actually refer to the false positives that occurred in the later search sessions where the carpet squares had been ventilated for some time depending on the initial contamination time.

      In these later searches, the signal difference between contaminated and uncontaminated material was expected to be smaller, hence the precaution to specifically label the false positives occuring in this context. This would mean that, ironically, most false positives occured in the early searches, which were presumably "easier". This further reinforces the impression that false positives were not due to a faulty sense of smell.

    13. Anonymous 1 Feb 2018, 11:05:00,

      Thank you once again for your contributions.

      Could the "uncontaminated/contaminated by living", "2 min" and "10 min" be the terminology to categorise searches, as in a run done by a dog on the six jars presented to him?

      Basing this on this sentence: "Every sixth search was carried out without any contaminated material and at irregular intervals, carpet squares contaminated by the control subjects were added".

      This tells us that the first runs were done with squares with no contamination but later contaminated by living squares were added to them making them searches to “uncontaminated/contaminated by living squares”. At the end all the results registered could fall under this heading.

      So there would have been a 3 categorisation of runs: the above, the 2 minute one (that would have 2 min contaminated, uncontaminated and contaminated by living squares) and the 10 minute one (that would have 10 min contaminated, uncontaminated and contaminated by living squares).

      The 10 minute false positive would then have been a positive signal during a “10 minute” search to an uncontaminated square.

      Just trying to offer an explanation.

    14. If I follow you, each run with 6 jars would match one of these 3 categories, therefore the total counts within each category in Table 1 should be all multiples of 6. This is not the case. For instance, summing up the 'correct negative' and 'false positive' rows for 'Uncontaminated or contaminated by living' yields 46 for K, which is not a multiple of 6.

      It is after realizing this that I came up with an alternative explanation, but I am really not sure.

    15. Understand your logic but maybe take into account this, if you haven't yet:“The cadaver dogs were instructed to search for THE contaminated square amongst these six possible choices” (our caps).

      So, a “2 min” run would only have one 2 min contaminated by cadaver square and 5 other squares.

      Of these 5 we don’t know the ratio between uncontaminated and contaminated by living. That could change the necessity of the multiples of 6.

      Haven’t done any calculations though and just throwing out the idea.

      We know need to work on debunking Insane’s gaseous theory.

      It’s important that readers, both usual and newcomers, understand how this paper rules out in terms of possible outcomes the government may have for Operation Grange if it chooses, and we hope it doesn’t, to not go for the truth.

  32. One brief point:

    I have never 'dissed' the dogs. The dogs are extremely reliable.

    Unfortunately, Textusa isn't.
    She lied in her blog that dogs never return false positive alerts. This is provably wrong, as I have illustrated.

    Do carry on.....

    1. So Insane,

      You agree that Keela signalled blood in apartment 5A and the Scenic?

    2. It seems Insane's answer to the question above was this he posted on his blog:

      Dear readers,

      Whenever I take Textusa to task, it generates massive additional traffic to her site. Nowadays, she can barely scrape 50 comments per post; lock horns with me and that increases four-fold. I suspect this is partly why she has been posting nonsense, contradicting her own posts within hours of them appearing. So there will be no further communication with her on her blog. I'll comment on here and as always the comment page is open for anyone else to contribute.

      In addition, anyone requiring a response can use NT, or NotTextusa. Those are the only names I use and consequently the only ones to which I will respond. If this is a problem then the option to fuck off is always available.



    3. I love Insane’s response!
      He assumes more traffic because of him!
      It’s more traffic because reliability of dogs is what unites tweeters and bloggers who may disagree on many other theories.

    4. Tex love love love how the village idiot says the dogs are reliable until you mention admitting there was blood and then the dummies thrown out of the pram.

  33. Nothing from Gemma, not even to say it’s been delayed.

  34. Not long to wait now. @gemmaod1 "More
    The BBC and Madeleine: How the public were misled about a key sighting that could help to unlock the mystery of her disappearance. My investigation will be in @VillageMagIRE this weekend #McCann"

    1. Thank you!

      For registry in the blog purposes:

      Tweet #28:
      “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
      The BBC and Madeleine: How the public were misled about a key sighting that could help to unlock the mystery of her disappearance. My investigation will be in @VillageMagIRE this weekend #McCann
      2:17 pm - 31 Jan 2018”

  35. Here is an update on Gemma’s article

    1. Thank you, also!

      Interesting, by saying "BBC" she can only be going after Bilton's BBC Panorama program. Let's hope we're right.

      Let's hope she has read our posts "BBC Panorama I" and BBC "Panorama II"

      Specifically the second one where we dealt with Bilton and the Smith sighting in the #10. The Smith sighting of that post.

      We should have finished all we had to say about that programme...

      And by saying "the public were misled about a key sighting" it's as if she has read our post "Public Misleading of Public, by McCanns"

  36. It's great to see insane getting himself into a tizzy about the dogs and the lengths he will go to try and convince those who know better that the dogs are unreliable. The stress emancipating from his posts are almost tangabile. Does he not realise that the reliability of the dogs and the fear team McCann have of them were confirmed when super cool Gerry was left stressed and pleading as he tried to take a moment in court to diss the dogs. He didn't take that opportunity when the eyes of the world was on him to pay tribute to his daughter or even continue the hoax of appealing for her safe return. No his plan and he did sit before his time in the box and think about how he would take the opportunity to diss them allowing us to see it clearly stressed and panicked him. Even when the judge first tried to politely silence him the stress caused him to go out of control and brought out a greater rebuttal from the judge



    1. Anonymous 1 Feb 2018, 10:33:00,

      Thank you.

      Kate’s previous statement on where she thinks Maddie is gets no mention.

      The “urge” to look for Maddie doesn’t extend to the area where she disappeared from and where Kate said she believed Maddie was likely to be, in the Praia da Luz area.

      No mention of OG either.

      Comments about them by readers are unsympathetic, to say the least.

      Timed to coincide with Gemma’s article?

      The Sun encourages bullet firing...

  38. Says Walkercan1000/Not Textusa:
    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Show me any video or statement where the #mccann s say that the shutters were damaged or jemmied?
    4:17 pm - 31 Jan 2018”

    Answers Gemma O’Doherty:
    “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
    In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance, friends and family members said the McCanns told them...
    2:50 am - 22 Jan 2018

    Is Insane calling this family member a liar?

  39. VERY INTERESTING tweet from Insane/Walkercan1000/Not Textusa
    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Why is "The Sun" deleting comments about Amoral? #mccann
    6:27 am - 1 Feb 2018”

    Will, give Insane 2 clues: foul language and libel.

    The Sun lawyers are aware of the rulings of both cases that have been made public in the UK, the Joana Cipriano torture accusation and the McCanns claiming for damages and are aware that what you accuse Amaral of being is highly libellous.

    Mind you, we are only speculating. The Sun has proven before that it doesn’t care very much about such details.

    However, in case you are being truthful (do rush to A&E because you might be fatally allergic to it) is and the Sun is not accepting comments against Mr Amaral as it didn’t FOR YEARS against the McCanns, it would only mean one thing wouldn’t it? The tables have turned.

  40. As per request of commentator we have deleted a comment and its subsequent replies. However we would like to leave, censored, the thread on the blog:

    (censored) 31 Jan 2018, 14:06:00
    I forgot to also mention that martin walker the nessling paedo apologist has also crashed and burned.
    Diverse detection old boy, the dogs really dont lie!


    Textusa 31 Jan 2018, 15:17:00
    Could you please clarify your comment?
    You say "I forgot to also mention...." meaning you have commented before. Could you please tell us which was your previous comment?
    Also, could you please clarify who are you referring to when you say "martin walker"?
    In case we don't get a reply from you, we will have to delete your comment.

    Anonymous31 Jan 2018, 15:21:00
    I noticed your blog handle (censored). Has it to do with this, by any chance? Or you is it just a coincidence? (censored link)

    Textusa1 Feb 2018, 12:26:00
    On second thoughts, and due to the link put up by
    Anonymous 31 Jan 2018, 15:21:00 (thank you!) we will leave your comment up.

    Unpublished reply from (censored) has left a new comment on your post "The reliability of the cadaver dogs":

    Hi tex. Please remove my comment. This pseudonym should not be visible in this public context. It is my error, from working behind an intermittent bamboo curtain in china. The exuberance of killing insane was too much!
    Posted by (censored) to Textusa at 1 Feb 2018, 14:45:00


    It seems this company has collapsed.

    John Lowe the forensic expert involved in the Madeleine McCann case was employed by this company:

    Another one bites the dust.

  42. Michael Walker / Walkercan1000 is really odd, pathological in his lying it seems. Most 'anti' McCann 'bum trolls' as he calls them can see the nuances in an argument and apply logical reasoning and have something to back up what they say even if they may have interpreted it wrongly sometimes. To him anything he disagrees with is an absolute 'lie'. Black and white thinking like that is common in personality disorders, such as narcissistic PD or anti-social PD. Interestingly enough Narcissists are lacking in empathy, never admit guilt, are beyond reproach, react to criticism by belittling and changing the subject, they want to preserve their outward image at all cost. Sounds familiar with regards to this whole case.
    He constantly lies himself saying things like Martin Grimes 'disappeared without a trace and doesn't work anymore,' even though he's a lecturer in Forensics, 'he wasn't at the FBI' even though there are photos of him working with them.
    He constantly accuses people of libel and then tweets
    "Interesting this. Convict Amoral (convicted to 18 months imprisonment) was never charged despite his wife's accusations, his known drink driving and child abuse. Why? Is he a Freemason"
    So Amaral, who he childishly refers to with a silly name, is a child abuser and a wife beater?
    The fact that he can't see he has libelled someone and does exactly what he accuses others of really is odd and suggests mental issues. Then again I'm not an expert on this and it's just my opinion based on others I've had the misfortune to meet. Similarly it would seem Walker ( indicated by his amatuerish explanations), is not a scientist and just has his opinion on the dogs and the 'ancient burial grounds' in Portugal causing the dog alerts.
    Strangely enough in Jersey, we are also told Eddie the dog was 'fooled' by ancient remains, children's teeth that supposedly fell out but still had the roots on them and a piece of skull that was sent to a lab, got lost and then turned up again disguised as coconut. So apparently Eddie was correct in what he found, it's just in these 2 cases, they were ancient remains.

  43. If one should ignore the unsurprising and useless tidal wave of the noise made by Insane with his boresome insults, one can see that he has disputed only 2 things about the post: that dogs give false positives and that the cadaverine scent is something that’s exclusively gaseous.

    About the false positives, things went sour for him. With his obsession of not losing an argument and thanks to the participation of an anon, it all ended up being proved that the false positives within the experiment were due to behavioural problems or to K’s personality disorder and not due to misinterpretation of scents as no contaminated by living squares originated false positives.

    To note that the other 2 dogs, of a different breed, Mallinois, had no false positives whatsoever within experiment.

    With posterior of EVRD dogs in tandem with ones trained exclusively for blood, the false positives are nullified.

    And the paper, anyway one reads it, proves that only the first location where Maddie’s body lay can be argued to be a false positive. All other signals the paper proves without absolutely no doubt at all that are reliable.

    The second thing he has disputed on the post is we saying the paper debunks his gaseous theory.

    Insane defends that the cadaver scent originates directly in gaseous form from the corpse, that it the scent does not originate from any fluid the body produces when decomposing (which is visually contradicted by anyone who has the unfortunate luck of letting a piece of meat rot due to a cut in electricity in their homes and had then to clean it up).

    He defends this, so he can say that Eddie was indeed reliable, that he picked up the scent of molecules that wafted into the apartment, and that means that although the he picked up the scent inside the apartment, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a body had been inside the apartment.

    Before even proceeding, when would then have to ask: if Insane is right, why then train and use EVRD dogs at all?

    Sure, they would provide reliable positive signals but what these would only tell was the dog was smelling a scent from a corpse but the corpse could have been anywhere.

    What use is the dog if he just gives the information that someone has died? Much better than that then is for one to go and buy the local paper, read the necrology section and at least one gets to know names as well.

    If dogs only provided that there was cadaver scent in the air, as Insane defends, would the authors of the paper say “Research concerned with the effects and reliability of aging and deteriorating scents that are still detectable by dogs has been performed by Schoon [10,11]. Here, the ‘‘dog’’ is explicitly described as ‘‘reliable enough to be a forensic tool’’. We concur and advocate that the trained dog/handler team should be regarded as an excellent tool for crime scene investigations and cadaver searches”?

    But Insane is adamant. It’s gaseous.

    We said in the post “also, it shows what his [Insane’s] knowledge on the subject is, as when the paper states that the dogs were trained with “wet” material, his theory that the cadaver scent is purely of gaseous material is contradicted” and he responded with “Oh my fucking god. Why can't you understand this? Regardless of how the animals were trained, this study looked at the detection of cadaver scent which had been transferred to the collection material - ie the carpet squares - not by direct contact, not by fluid contamination, but merely by the tiles being in proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers. The scent transfer is gaseous, you dickhead”


    1. In the above, where we says "cadaverine scent", we evidently mean "cadaver scent".

      Our apologies and a huge thanks to Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000 for pointing that out.

  44. (Cont)

    He has even defended his “Madeleine graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A happens to be where a medieval graveyard was, as when we we wrote in the post:

    “To a very direct and specific question: “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, the scientist replies:
    “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.”
    All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.”

    Insane responded with “Which it is.”

    Before we get to Insane’s “proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers” let’s first try to understand what are the scientific basis with which Insane, the self-proclaimed scientist (who apparently has loads of scientific friends who share with him loads laugh in his scientific world).

    We basis his assertions on 2 things. The first is this statement from Martin Grime:

    “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But *strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.”

    It seems to us that Martin Grime is quite clear in contradicting him when he says “a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from”.

    Insane could say that this is not a contradiction as that is would be what happens to curtains in the rooms designated for smokers in hotels (not sure if they exist anymore), in which curtains reek of smell of tobacco.

    We have explained that is due to the concentration of the tobacco fumes on these curtains and the number of molecules accumulated form a mass from which the scent emanates.

    Comparing a curtain from a concentration in a room where cigarettes are smoked with that of molecules wafting into an apartment is like comparing a glass of water with the Atlantic Ocean.

    And lest Insane forget, Eddie signalled the opposite side of the room from where the curtains were curtains, which would be, like it happens in the rooms for smokers, the natural place for molecules to concentrate.

    And Grime says this phenomenon may happen when there’s a conjunction of “hot climate with the apartment being closed down”.

    It was chilly the night Maddie died and the apartment that night was sure ventilated. Way too ventilated, much more than it should have been as we all know.

    And between May 3 and the moment the dogs stepped into the apartment, the apartment had been used by other tourists and regularly cleaned by the Ocean club staff.

    And by saying “but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room”, Grime is specifically implying that when that phenomenon happens the source of emission of the scent may not be the area the dog is signalling but very proximate, in the same room.


  45. (Cont)

    But what Insane really sinks his teeth into is the no contact between the contaminated carpet squares and the corpses in the Oesterhelweg paper (OP).

    These are the quotes he hangs on to as if his life depended on them (our caps):

    “The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min WITHOUT ANY DIRECT CONTACT between the carpet and the corpse.”
    “Both bodies presented with a dry and intact skin without any visible injuries except a puncture site from an intravenous catheter on the posterior surface of one hand. These puncture marks were immediately covered with latex gloves TO PREVENT A DIRECT CONTAMINATION of any materials with the dried blood.”
    “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.”

    “Without any direct contact”, “to prevent a direct contamination” and “to preclude the direct contamination” are the phrases that Insane clings to for dear life and says that “in proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers”.

    As if the carpet squares were put really, REALLY close to the corpses but as it didn’t touch them the contamination was gaseous.

    Let’s see what the paper says how close to the corpses the carpet squares were placed (our caps):
    “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.”

    This is a supine position, a person laid on their backs:

    The squares being placed underneath the corpses so very, very close. In fact, with no airspace between them and the blanket as well as none between the corpse and the blanket.

    The blanket was there to represent the sheets/clothing that were between the corpse and the mattress of the crime scene being replicated.

    There was no direct contact between the corpses and the carpet square but it’s evident that the contamination was done through the seeping of what we call the decomposition fluid through the blanket to the square.

    Besides, as we said above the paper clearly states that “The education and training the dogs received consisted primarily of searching for ‘‘wet’’ materials such as blood, body fluid and muscle tissue.”

    Insane, to that responds “Regardless of how the animals were trained…”

    So basically for Insane, it’s not important for the dogs to be trained for one thing, “”wet” materials” and be scientifically experimented for something they had never been trained for, his gaseous theory.

  46. Insane is just a minion. He may be the top-minion on the battlefield but he's no more than that, a minion.

    What we want readers to understand is the importance of the Oesterhelweg et al paper and the reason why Insane wanted to keep it away from us, and made a huge, huge mistake in letting us getting our hands on it:

    This paper obliterates any theory that has a Maddie alive when Gerry says he claims he saw her at around 21:00/21:15.

    The paper debunks the fantasist gaseous molecules and places a dead Maddie inside the apartment and in the locations (living-room and closet) signalled by Eddie.

    And the paper proves that Maddie had to have been dead much before the time Gerry claims he saw her and had that famous father moment.

    That’s the importance of this paper.

    And let’s finish with the words of Walkercan1000/Not Textusa:
    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Another (…) liar spouting 100% Bullshit. It is interesting why they feel the need to do so. What are they hiding? XXX #mccann
    2:29 pm - 30 Jan 2018”

    1. And debunking Gerry, the paper also debunks the sedation scenario as Maddie the blood spatters indicate the time Maddie died.

      If one pulls 2 hours before the alarm, it means that Maddie was already dead when they all (supposedly) went to Tapas to dine.

    2. If one looked up callous in the dictionary this lot would come listed under it. To me it doesn't matter who came up with plan this lot executed the charade. The selfishness of all involved really does prove how low the bottom of the barrel can go when scraping it. Time to give this child some dignity and come clean, your own kids might even hate you that little bit less for dragging them onto this mess.

  47. Tweet #29

    “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
    Gemma O'Doherty Retweeted Village Magazine
    As part of my #MadeleineMcCann investigation, the #BBC have admitted to me they made a mistake in their coverage of a potentially critical sighting of a man and child on the night she disappeared. Police say this sighting could hold the key to the entire mystery #McCann
    Gemma O'Doherty added,
    Village MagazineVerified account @VillageMagIRE
    Village's February edition will be out and in shops tomorrow, Saturday 3rd
    7:59 am - 2 Feb 2018

  48. Wow the BBC actually admitted making a mistake. That is rare.
    Might they admit more.........

  49. A message from Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000,

    "This bit is being deleted as I am not Michael Walker, nor do I have any connection with him

    I think it is only fair to warn you that a formal take-down notice has already been sought with Google in view of your refusal to remove statements where you have falsely linked me to this person and others. That goes into an international registry, the Lumen database and will almost certainly result in restriction of service action by Google against you, as well as the removal of your site, particularly as you have been informed on numerous occasions that your claim is false. It has been adjudged that you had no basis to make the claim in the first instance and that you have continued to make the claim despite being told to remove it. I have been able to provide proof that you were requested to remove these false claims.

    I suggest you start backing up your posts, Maria. They have assured me that they can remove your blog at any time without giving you prior notice.

    Have a nice day"

    1. Hi Textusa,perhaps,Nottextusa/Walkercan1000,has connections via Clarence to a certain"Mindset"where they have connections of a secure nature environment,Big Brother clan!
      If he does in fact(Walkercan1000) as stated by the McCann's,they have their own"Watches of the Internet",then perhaps he is well informed by buddies how to legally have blog sites disconnected?
      Bst of Luck on staying connected,as Jonsey said"They don't like it up erm" Mr Mannerwing.

    2. Insane, have you also filed a similar formal take-down notice on Twitter? There are tweeters there accusing you of the same.

    3. An anon complaining that an anon is defaming him because that anon is saying he's an anon who he says he isn't.
      If Insane is a paid shill someone is wasting their money. He's really made himself look stupid now.

    4. "They have assured me that they can remove your blog at any time without giving you prior notice"
      Even in this he's a liar
      The blog should get a warning on dashboard and given time to respond to blogger.
      If he did complain and if they respond to complaint.

    Stores are stocking up their magazine racks with this edition of Village Magazine

  51. Maddie: did the BBC bend the truth?

    Gemma O’Doherty

    On the night Madeleine McCann disappeared, an Irish tourist saw a man with a child matching her description near the McCann apartment. His testimony could prove vital to the world's most famous missing person case, especially since the man he saw that night has never come forward.

    On a cold May night in 2007. Martin Smith and his family were walking home after an evening out in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz. A retired businessman from Drogheda, Co Louth, he co-owned an apartment there and was a regular visitor to the Algarve town.

    The crowds of summer had yet to arrive and the nor• malty bustling streets of the old quarter lay quiet. It was approaching 10pm when some members of the family of nine were suddenly struck by the sight of a man walking quickly towards them holding a small child uncomfortably in his arms.

    As he passed close by them on the narrow street, the child appeared to be in a deep sleep. her head placed over his shoulder and arms suspended down her body.

    She was blonde. aged around four and wearing pyjamas. Despite the chill in the air, her feet were bare. Martin and his daughter Aoife noted that her skin was very white. The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top.

    A member of Martin's family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.

    At the time, Martin did not realise the sighting had the potential to change the course of the world’s most high-profile missing-person case.

    The following morning, he got a text from his daughter in Ireland to tell him that a three-year-old girl had gone missing in the resort. The approximate time frame and location he had witnessed the man and the child appeared to match.

    By now, the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann was beginning to grip the world. Martin brought his mind back to the evening before and wondered if the child he saw could have been her. The girl certainly matched Madeleine’s description and the sighting had taken place at Rua da Escola Primaria, just 500 yards from the McCann apartment. In time, Martin would become convinced he was correct.

    Over a decade has passed since Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3. 2007 yet the case of the British three-year-old remains mired more questions than answers. The mainstream media, who have by and large backed Gerry and Kate McCann's version of events with the support of several A-list celebrities and politicians, appear to have lost interest in a story they once could not get enough of.

    The very opposite is true on social media. The internet swirls with allegations and theories that the McCann story is littered with holes and does not stack up. Countless videos have been posted YouTube by armchair detectives challenging the parents’ seemingly at times bizarre behaviour, in particular their reactions in certain interviews when the finger of blame shifts towards them.

    Some are compelling to watch and have highlighted what appear to be discrepancies and confusion in certain accounts given by the McCanns and some of their friends about what happened in the period before and after Madeleine disappeared.

    Getty McCann. a consultant cardiologist from Scotland and his Liverpool wife Kate, a GP and anaesthetist. said they had put their daughter and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie to bed at around 7pm, had drinks together for almost an hour and then left the children alone to go to a tapas bat 50 yards from their apartment. There they met seven friends with whom they were on holiday. They told police that they and their friends checked on the children every half hour.


  52. (Cont)

    Gerry said he went to the apartment at 9.05pm and all the children were sleeping soundly. He said Madeleine was lying on her left-hand side in exactly the same position she was in when they had left her.

    At 9.25pm, his friend. Dr Matthew Oldfield told police he went to check on the McCann children. He said afterwards he could not be certain that he saw Madeleine on that check.
    Kate McCann said she went back to the apartment at around t10pm, entering through the patio doors that they had left unlocked. She said she noticed that the door of the children's bed. room was “completely open” and that the window was also open and the shutters raised. She said she scoured the apartment. then left the twins asleep in their beds before running back to her friends in the tapas bar and claiming Madeleine had been taken. At 10.41pm. her disappearance from Apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort was reported to police by hotel staff.

    Overnight the story made headlines around the world. Several days after Madeleine disappeared. the Smith family flew back home, but the sighting remained at the back of Martin's mind. He discussed it with his wife Mary. son Peter and daughter Aoife who were with him that night.

    When they tallied the time and location, and the fact that the man they had seen had come from the direction of the Ocean Club complex where the McCanns were staying. they were convinced that it could have been Madeleine they had seen.

    They decided to inform investigating police. and at the end of May 2007. Martin. Aoife and Peter flew back out to Portugal to make statements. They gave similar accounts of the man they had witnessed: average build, short brown hair, beige trousers: and the child: blonde, around four. and wearing pyjamas.

    As the summer passed. the mystery of what happened to Madeleine McCann continued to perplex the world but life returned to normal for the Smiths. Then one Sunday evening in September. it came back to haunt Martin again. He was sitting at home watching TV when a report came on the BBC 'News at Ten' about the McCanns. return to Britain. As he watched Gerry coming down the steps pf the plane carrying his two-year old son in his arms, Martin was gripped by what he had seen and described the experience as “an action replay” in his mind.

    He was instantly brought back to the night of May 3 in Praia da Luz. Something about the way Gerry was holding the child in his arms and the way he put his head down seemed shockingly similar to the man he had seen in Portugal the night Madeleine went missing. He said it hit him like a “bolt from the blue”. He watched the clip again on different news channels reinforcing his belief that he was not mistaken.

    During this period. Martin had difficulty sleeping and felt sick with anxiety. He contacted the Garda and informed them of what had happened.

    He told them he was 60-80% sure the man he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. His wife Mary felt the same way.

    Irish officers found him credible. A local garda who interviewed him on behalf of the Portuguese authorities described him as a genuine. decent man who did not want to court the press orseek publicity.
    But while Martin's evidence seemed compelling, independent and without motivation. much to his frustration. it was not given the attention it seemed to deserve.

    Almost a year after he made his initial statement to police, he was approached by private detectives working for the McCanns and asked to make e-fits (electronic facial identification images). of the man he had seen the night Madeleine disappeared.


  53. (Cont)

    The McCanns say they gave these pictures to the police at the time but chose not to publicise them. Instead they remained focused on another sighting by their friend Jane Tanner, one of the so called Tapas Seven group of friends who had on holiday with the couple and who dined with them the evening Madeleine disappeared. She claimed to have seen a man carrying a child away from their apartment complex at around 9.20pm. but in the opposite direction to the man allegedlv seen by the Smiths.

    However, more than six years later. in 2013, the Metropolitan police announced that a British tourist had come forward to say he could have been the man she had seen as he carried his daughter home from the Ocean Club late night creche.
    The Tanner sighting was about to be dismissed. The Met would switch their attention to the man seen by the Smiths. The e-fit images were finally released and the then chief investigating officer Andy Redwood said the timeline leading up to Madeleine's disappearance was being rewritten, especially the 90 minutes between 8.30pm, when the McCanns left their children to go to the restaurant and 10pm, when they discovered their daughter missing.

    A reward of €20,000 was Offered to anyone who could assist with the investigation. But then the Story of the Smith sighting took another bizarre twist as allegations emerged in the media that the family had retracted their statements. The public were being told that this potentially critical development was just another red herring.

    The BBC even went as far as to make this claim. In a 'Panorama' programme broadcast in May to mark the tenth anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, presenter Richard Bilton told viewers that the Smiths had changed their mind about seeing Gerry McCann and now believed they had seen someone else.

    In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting.

    He is frustrated by media claims that he now says he was mistaken; and remains "60-80 per cent" convinced that the man he saw that night was Gerry McCann.

    After the BBC programme was broadcast, Martin contacted ‘Panorama’ and informed them of their inaccuracy. But the broadcaster failed to correct the record despite its public service remit.

    Last month. asked the BBC why they had wrongly suggested the Smith sighting had been withdrawn and if they were willing to correct their error at this late stage.

    I received a reply acknowledging that they had indeed broadcast an inaccuracy. They agreed to update the ‘Panorama’ programme on their iPlayer to reflect the correction. They say the mistake was made in good faith but they have failed to explain how they came to make such a fundamental error and why they did not check if their story about the Smiths was correct before they aired the programme.

    Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.

    According to media reports. Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.

    Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.


  54. (Cont)

    “Looking at the background to the whole case again. inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”. he says:

    “When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn't just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smith's memory was triggered by seeing Gerry McCann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.

    I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so”.

    Operation Grange

    To date, Operation Grange, which now consists of four detectives from a peak of 31, has cost the British public more than £11m making it one of the most expensive police investigations in history. It was launched in 2011 after the Portuguese closed their enquiry in 2008. Funds are expected to run out at the end of March. Grange has been heavily criticised for refusing to reinterview Gerry and Kate McCann and the so-called Tapas Seven. The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first.

    In Britain. as matters currently stand. if the authorities are any closer to finding the chief suspect in the world's most famous missing child case, they are certainly not saying.

    As for the man the Smiths saw that night. he has yet to come forward to eliminate himself from the inquiry and remains unidentified.

    1. First thing that has to be pointed out is that with the exception of one sentence, as far as we can see, everything Gemma O’Doherty has said is truthful.

      We think someone should ask Gemma to clarify the following sentence: “The Met said local police had already done this and there was no need to repeat the process, but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings and best practice in cases like this dictates it is always important to eliminate those closest to the child first”

      Specifically the part “…but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings…”.

      Is this a personal opinion? If so, based on what and could she provide one example of one these failings?

      Is this using indirect speech of what the Met has said about the Portuguese investigation? If so, why not clarify it?

    2. There are no quotes in that section, Textusa so is Gemma's opinion is how I read it.

      I agree it is wrong in general and I do distinctly remember a UK woman offical/prosecutor at a press conference around the time the M's returned home in September 2007 saying when asked, why the PJ weren't granted permission to do basic background/financial checks because it was along the lines of not being appropriate or allowed and beyond being reasonable!?

      So any failings were mainly due to how Police on the UK side blocked the PJ from doing their job (at least).

      The eliminating those closest was just not allowed to be done. (Why for the 1000th time....?)

    3. I'm shocked as well. This "but the Portuguese investigation was littered with failings" is, coming from a self called investigating journalist, saying too much or not enough.
      I have a feeling that Gemma O'Doherty repeats hearsay, as so many did and still do in the MC case.. And there has been quite a lot of it concerning the PJ and its supposed, never proved, leaks.

      I wish that GOD (!) had asked MS whether he was the inspiration for the famous e-fits (I don't think he was, that wouldn't make sense imo).

  55. Unpublished Anonymous at 3 Feb 2018, 12:55:00,

    Thank you for your help, but as you can see we were working also on transcribing the article.

  56. Can anyone tell the difference between these 2 WalkerCans:

    This one:
    "Michael Walker‏@walkercan1000
    Replying to @gemmaod1
    Yes, it's a well known fact that journos, totally disconnected from the case, know more than 2 police forces who've spent about $20M. Get a life, make your money elsewhere and not out of a grieving family. Vile. #mccann
    5:17 am - 7 Jan 2018"

    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    The more the new Irish Journo Tweets about #mccann (Copying Troll Hate Youtube Videos) the more you realise the #MaryBoyle video had no substance. I'd like to see what "awards" she bills it as having.
    4:12 pm - 9 Jan 2018”

    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Replying to @nowayjomo @BoyleLance and 2 others
    I think @gemmaod1 is just using the #mccann case to provoke reaction to the Boyle story. I don't, for one minute, consider her to believe the shite she's posting about Madeleine. In itself it's a form of abuse.
    5:12 am - 15 Jan 2018

    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    It's laughable to think that some unemployed "journo" thinks she has anything to add to the #mccann case. Just a joke. Some "people" will do anything to generate an income.
    7:12 am - 15 Jan 2018”

    And this one:
    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Apparently the #mccann s are going to be arrested. Tomorrow. LOL. XXX
    3:39 pm - 28 Jan 2018”

    “Michael Walker‏ @walkercan1000
    Have you noticed? Everything is "tomorrow" with the #mccann Bum Trolls. LOL
    12:59 pm - 30 Jan 2018”

    1. And we'll answer our own question:

      Walkercan1 is scared, worried.

      Walkercan2 is cocky, goading.

    2. Bingo! Exactly what I thought when you asked ....

  57. The first, and up to now only tweet post-publication of article:

    “Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
    Louth man Martin Smith has confirmed he remains 60-80% sure he saw Gerry McCann carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared. Police are keen to talk to the man he saw, who has yet to come forward and identify himself. My report is in @VillageMagIRE today #McCann
    3:10 am - 3 Feb 2018”

    1. Police are not keen to talk to the man,there is nothing of note on the MET web page.

  58. I notice the number of retweets and likes is increasing dramatically.

    Michael Walker‏
    Follow Follow @walkercan1000
    To the #McCann trolls who I've just heard are upset I've blocked. This account isn't about you, I'm not interested in your vulgarity.
    My account is about posting facts arising from my intensive study of the case & review of 11k pages of files that were translated by said Trolls.

    12:31 pm - 4 Feb 2018

    Pathetic. If he doesn't believe in the translations why waste time to intensively study them?

  60. Yes, Gemma O'Doherty was almost completely truthful. But "almost" isn't really good enough.

    To me, she seems to be walking in the footsteps of Sutton, Bilton and co, those characters who appeared in the version 2.0 of the hoax presenting themselves as fierce anti-McCanns to gain credibility and sympathy from the general public, and then going on stage to say essentially one thing: that the PJ investigation was rubbish.

    If the PJ investigation was rubbish, then guess what the PJ files are. And if Mr Smith is only 60-80% sure that he saw Gerry McCann, then what is left against the McCanns? The obvious answer is: nothing. Zero. Nada.

    Are we supposed to now support Gemma on Twitter and happily follow her into this dead end road? The trap seems so obvious that I even wonder if she is doing this deliberately.

    I would like to be wrong.

    1. Unfortunately one of the first things to leave one in this mess is a trusting nature. I agree 10.25 and Suttons mention does make me cock an ear. It certainly seems to follow the "slowly slowy catchee monkee" while tiptoeing through the tulips.


    2. Have you noticed that Gemma & JIm Gamble (yes Jim Gamble!) are now following each other on Twitter?)

    3. 13.54
      What I have noticed is that GD hasn't tweeted for a long time. Very strange. She's not answering questions there either.

    4. Would the idea be to make Smithman a urban legend?
      He looked like Gerald MC, why not ?, but couldn't be him since the PJ report locates GMC at the Tapas while the S family crossed Smithman.
      Most of the TP7, questioned, didn't know well what was the time when KMC raised the alarm. Somebody suggested "around 10pm" and all repeated "around 10pm". On the first time line this is what is written. But Matthew M first said that KMC had left at 21:50 and Fiona P between 21:45 and 22h. Ricardo O, who brought Russell his steak, said that everybody had gone, except for Dianne W, around 21:50.
      Curiously, in spite of this, the time line used by the PJ is the TP9's one !

  61. Goncalo Amaral said: "Yes, there were failings, but there will be no apology - I was just doing my job.".

  62. People need to see and share this:

    Canine Truth@K9Truth
    Replying to @KillingJokez, @2for1Tickets, and @PeritaRisus
    I would like to see that photo on the front page of every newspaper beside John Lowe's analysis of swab 3a (taken from one of the removed floor tiles in that photo).
    5:13 pm · 5 Feb 2018

    1. I agree, completely.

    2. It can't be conclusive if there were many contributors.

    3. Anne Guedes,

    4. "So, according to Lowe, it could be from Maddie (if single source) or it could be linked to Kate and Gerry (if more than one person) BUT it’s in no way linked to the McCann family?!?"
      That's not what I understand, Textusa, swab 3A was MC and swab 3B wasn't.
      Now the sample was so incomplete that there was no way to determine whether it came only from MMC or from both her parents.
      Inconclusive !

    5. Anne Guedes,

      Pardon the language but it seems that you are confusing "inconclusive" with rubbish.

      What Lowe has said in the final report is rubbish because it's absurd.

      However, the same Lowe had no doubt in saying in the interim report that it belonged to Maddie.

    6. Anne Guedes,

      We have been informed that Insane has decided to give you a personal reply about our conversation above. Here is what he had to say:

      “And this is the problem - the stupid bitch [he means us, not you Anne] is too dimwitted to notice that Lowe is referring to two DIFFERENT swabs.

      Swab 3A
      Swab 3B

      Swab 3A contained a tiny amount of DNA which could have come from a McCann.
      Swab 3B also contained tiny amounts of DNA, but with no indication that it came from a McCann.

      She has known about this for years, but refuses to amend her error.
      Just ignore the mad bitch”

      About Swab 3a, John Lowe on the final report is very clear: it’s EITHER from Maddie OR from one of her parents.

      That only has ONE interpretation, it MUST come from the McCann family.

      There’s nothing, absolutely nothing inconclusive about that unless one wants to talk rubbish.

      But do note that John Lowe does not say “In my opinion, there are no indications that justify the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result” for Swab 3a. He only says that for Swab 3b.

      For Swab 3a he only says he can’t determine from which body fluid it comes from, nor how and when it got there.

      About this swab, on the interim report Lowe states categorically that “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann”

      Note, the stain is the same. It’s stain #3.

      Swab 3a is a dry swab from it and 3b a wet one.

      This means that even though Swab 3b failed to produce results, Swab 3a from that SAME stain, has given conclusive ones: it’s Maddie if one goes by the interim report or it’s from one of the following: Maddie, Kate or Gerry if one goes by the final one.

    7. So readers can know exactly what John Lowe has said about stain #3:

      Interim Report:

      An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

      A low level LCN DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3b). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Madeleine McCann contributed DNA to this result.

      Final report:

      “286A/2007-CRL 3A& B Swabs collected from the floor of the apartment

      An incomplete and weak DNA result comprising only some unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from the cellular material present in the dry swab (3A). The attempt to obtain a result from any cellular material that may have been in the same area and present in the wet swab (3B) was unfruitful, given that no profile was obtained. These samples were submitted for LCN tests.

      An incomplete DNA result was obtained through LCN from cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3A). The low-level DNA result showed very meagre information indicating more than one person. Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann, for example. DNA profiles established through LCN are extremely sensitive; it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid. nor to determine how or when that DNA was transferred to that area.
      A low-level DNA result was obtained through LCN from the cellular material present in the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3B). In my opinion, there are no indications that justify [confirm/prove] the theory that any member of the McCann family had contributed DNA to this result.”


    1. Anonymous 6 Feb 2018, 12:19:00,

      Thank you!

      For those with knowledge of accounting:


    This worked for me without the rest...tho you can use link i sent above and open pdf...


  65. Looks like around 51,000 for isabel duarte...

    ... creditors include costs which relate to work which was carried out by the Portuguese advocate, Isable Duarte over a number of years relating to the libel action brought by Gerald and Kate McCann against the discredited Portuguese detective Goncala [sic] Amaral (over claims made in his book), his publishers and the firm that produced a television documentary and the subsequent DVD. The libel action reached the Supreme Court in Portugal with judgement [sic] given against Gerald and Kate. The case has been referred to the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR") on an application submitted by the advocate's firm, IDLei.

    The ECHR will provide a written judgement on the case, the timescale of which is not currently known.
    Discredited? By them....
    Nor if ECHR will accept it..


    1. That "discredited" in the middle of an account sheet sounds very odd ! How administrators could write this? Was it a request of the losers ?

    2. Do the administrators know how the ECHR functions ? Do they think the judges have time to "provide a written judgement" on cases that (most of them) are rejected for lack of pertinence ? Perhaps this one will be accepted, which doesn't mean that the judgement would then be in favour of the MCs against Portugal. I bet it will not be considered admissible.

  66. And Gemma O'Doherty has tweeted, on an unrelated subject to the article:

    That breaks a Twitter-silence of 3 days, 5 hours and 49 minutes after the only tweet (so far) on the subject after article was published.

  67. Can I ask if you are implying something about her Twitter silence Textusa?

    Are you thinking she has been told to shut up or been politely asked to be quiet?

    Do you think she is another Sutton you don't trust? JG Twitter hook up could be a bad sign too....

    What do you think is going on here and are you working on a new blog post about ?

    1. Anonymous 6 Feb 2018, 18:39:00,

      Yes, we are working on blog post(s) on the subject with which we hope to clarify all your questions.

      In our time and rhythm, as always.

  68. Thanks. Hope we don't have to wait too long!

  69. Hi textusa,apparently,Walkercan1000,has been on twitter,stating he knew all along that the BBC were to change what they had put out in Mr Bilton's ten year programme? He(Walker) has told Mr Smith not to speak with the anti trolls about what he had seen in Portugal 3 May 2007.
    quite astonishing claim to know the BBC where to change part of their previous claim on Mr Martin Smith and his Family.

    1. Anonymous 6 Feb 2018, 20:43:00,

      Firstly, a correction to what you stated because one has to factually correct.

      Factually Walkercan1000 didn't say on Twitter that he told Mr Smith not to speak.

      What Walkercan1000 has stated is on one tweet that “I spoke to Smith. He is 100% certain that the man he saw was not G” and on another that “AND Smith confirmed to me he would no longer discuss the case with anyone following abuse from #mccann Trolls.”

      He’s just being he’s usual self. Doesn’t even realise that he’s contradicting himself.

      If Mr Smith told him the man he saw wasn’t Gerry why would the BBC change this as he simultaneously acknowledges?

      And if it changed this as apparently has (taking out the statement saying the Smiths have since changed their minds – the original still is other YouTube videos and we have transcribed it in our blog), why did it do if it wasn’t Gemma?

      As far as we know, they corrected info on the McCann fund not being a charity when challenged and there was a notice on BBC Panorama programme site as we recall.

      There should be a similar notice about Smith, in our opinion.

      To clarify, BBC have taken out comment about the Smiths on their video but haven’t put a written correction on front of video, as they did for fund correction

      The fund correction was written but nothing that was spoken about it was removed from video.


    I have just watched a fascinating programme filmed there. It showed training and the many things the dogs can sniff out including detecting many types of illness and cancers even before people have any symptoms. Things like MS begin up to 30 years before any symptoms are shown and if these people could be detected early it would be a great medical advancement.

    BUT there again......dogs are “notoriously unreliable”.....I think a certain person claimed.

  71. About the alleged process filed by the McCanns against Portugal at the ECHR we inform that:

    Between May 2 2017 and Jan 28 2018, 1,259 cases have been COMMUNICATED to this court and of these 12 have been filed against Portugal:{"documentcollectionid2":["COMMUNICATEDCASES"]}

    - DE OLIVEIRA COSTA c. PORTUGAL (07/06/2017)
    - SOARES CAMPOS c. PORTUGAL (13/07/2017)
    - PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires (13/09/2017)
    - MATHIOT c. PORTUGAL (13/09/2017)
    - JIANG ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL (18/10/2017)
    - DE SOUSA MAGALHÃES ET SOUSA DE CASTRO SOARES c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires (13/11/2017)
    - FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL et 1 autre affaire (23/11/2017)
    - NÓBREGA v. PORTUGAL (29/11/2017)
    - FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL (29/11/2017)
    - WAHED HASSAD c. PORTUGAL (12/01/2018)

    Between June 15 2017 and Jan 23 2018, 923 cases have been DECIDED in this court and of these 3 were filed against Portugal:{"documentcollectionid2":["DECISIONS"]}
    - COSTA v. PORTUGAL (26/09/2017) Decision: Inadmissible
    - GERÖ ALMEIDA FREITAS c. PORTUGAL (28/11/2017) Decision: Irrecevable
    - GENTIL BERGER c. PORTUGAL (16/01/2018) Decision: Radiation du rôle

    Between Nov 30 2017 and Feb 08, 571 JUDGEMENTS have been made in this court and 3 of these of 1 case that was filed against Portugal and had 3 decisions:{"documentcollectionid2":["JUDGMENTS"]}

    - CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL - [Romanian Translation] summary by the Supreme of Justice of the Republic of Moldova (19/12/2017) Decision: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded No...
    - AFFAIRE LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES c. PORTUGAL (19/12/2017) Decision: Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Art. 35) Conditions de recevabilité (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestement mal fondé N...
    - CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL (19/12/2017) Decision: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded No...

    No mention of the McCanns.

    We very much doubt that IF the McCanns filed a case against Portugal in the ECHR, it would have been judged before Nov 30 2017.

    1. ECHR Decisions: Manifestly ill founded, inadmissible
      Even those who get as far as this can be rejected; quite harshly worded too.

  72. Textusa,
    Your replies to Insane's nonsense @8 Feb 2018, 12:36:00 and @8 Feb 2018, 12:37:00 should be comments and not replies. Where they are they can be easily overlooked and I think they really make very clear very important old ground. Making this comment to alert other readers as I almost missed them myself.



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.