Third Option

1. Introduction

In our post last week “Vultures circling” we spoke about how it seemed these hyenas with wings were circling above and around Praia da Luz for a Portuguese paedophile.

Please note the difference between Kate McCann pointing her fingers at the Praia da Luz area, and the vultures we referred to in that post.

We think Kate McCann is pointing to Praia da Luz to say that what has happened to Maddie is to be disclosed while the vultures are looking for a fictitious Portuguese paedophile who specialised in attacking British girls, who no local authorities has ever heard about or had any report filed against, but that Scotland Yard claimed to have uncovered when it turns out it was Dave Edgar who two years before Operation Grange was set up first invented the character.

As we have repeatedly said, we think there are only 2 realistic options for the conclusion Operation Grange can come to: truth or archival.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other options. Obviously there are, but for us all of them have varying  degrees of fantasy and some even go over the scale but are options nonetheless. An option may be ridiculous but is never stupid. Stupidity is an exclusive of those who chose to take ridiculous options.

We think the vultures looking for the Portuguese paedo in Praia da Luz are part of a Third Option.

We first noticed it in the UK Crimewatch of 2014, which we then said to have been an exercise to isolate the wrongdoing on the McCann couple.

Then we noticed that in the first half of 2015 it began to take form. And lately we do believe that it is growing legs to walk.

We think it’s a ridiculous option, that it’s impossible to fit it into reality, as we will explain further on, but nothing like detailing it and allowing our readers to concur or not with our thoughts on it.


2. The Third Option Theory
 
Let’s start by showing what was written on another site where an Anonymous puts a question to Insane and he replies. We will not acknowledge the site as anyone who sides with Insane, however briefly and however wrongly that relationship turns out, does not deserve any sort of consideration from us.

“Anonymous 24 February 2016 at 22:04

NT [Not Textusa] you say:

"While he and many others are trying to work out 'what they did with the body for three weeks before moving it in the Scenic', they have lost sight of the fact that other scenarios are far more likely."

I don't know about anyone else but all I'm asking, given your above opinion, is what did happen to Madeleine's body that night?

I believe you accept she was dead behind the sofa between ~18:00 and 20:30 on the 3rd May? Given that, what happened to her and where did she go in your opinion?

Or at least state what the far more likely scenarios are.

Thanks.”

Insane replied:

“Not Textusa 24 February 2016 at 22:59

I have my own opinions about what may have happened. I don't discuss them other than on my own blog and with people whom I trust. That's because they are my own opinions and theories only, not something I can prove, and I have no intention of giving the McCanns ammunition.

So let me tell you what I think we do know, and which questions remain unanswered. What you do with them is up to you.

I am not sure where you get the idea that I believe she was 'dead behind the sofa between ~18:00 and 20:30'

Martin Grime made it very clear that the spot where the dog alerts may not be the source of the odour and that it depends on air currents within the room. So while it could indicate that she lay there, it is not definitive.

The time which is unaccounted for is from around 18.00 to 22.00, basically the time after which no-one other than her parents claim to have seen her.

There was no blood splatter, foreign DNA, bodily fluids, fingerprints, trace evidence, or witness accounts consistent with an intruder.

There was no sign of a forced entry - no toolmarks, footprints, damage to shutters or window.

However, as a door was left open one cannot 100% rule out someone getting in that way.

What is odd is that if someone got in via a door, why would they open a window and shutters, thus potentially alerting people to their presence, when they could leave the same way they came in? It is more consistent with an attempt to make it appear as if someone came in through a window, rather than a genuine attempt to get in or out.

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.

In terms of her body - well, who knows. All I will say on that point is that most victims are found fairly close by, and that goes for all scenarios, including abduction.

There are also, sadly, many victims whose remains turn up in dumpsters or at recycling centres, although after this length of time I think they would have to search the landfill sites.

If I had to decide what to do next, I would consider widescale searches of local landfill sites and the local area generally with cadaver dogs. There was a case a few years back where a girl disappeared on a visit to a church in Italy. Her remains were finally discovered 18 years later, on the roof of the church.

Enjoy playing join the dots.”

As if straight out of  Ripley’s Believe It or Not, Insane declares himself an anti, a McCann sceptic. So no, there’s no typo when he writes “I have no intention of handing information to the pro lobby”. Just another one of his unconvincing lies.

Insane’s presence on this site was quite interesting to watch. He evidently was trying to gain some  credibility that would allow him to badmouth us to a wider audience than his blogs are able to attract. Sewers repel, only rats look for them.

Insane’s impossible quest for credibility did allow us to see a side of him rarely seen: his polite and respectful one. When one is trying to be convincing one has to be humble and Insane is no different. Sure, he frequently dropped the mask and was the rude, arrogant and short-tempered bully whenever anyone called his bluff but during his let-me-convince-you periods he provided us gems to use in the future.

One just has to look at this polite reply and although he does say “I have my own opinions about what may have happened. I don't discuss them other than on my own blog and with people whom I trust” he ends up giving lots of opinions about what he says he believes happened. We all know that he's selling cow dung as chocolate as most time of his life seems to be basically spent on finding arguments to use in his rude attempts to contradict anyone who is correct.

To badmouth anyone is easy, but to be convincing one has to commit oneself to opinions. Like believing that Maddie is dead or believing in the dogs. And once he commits to opinion he has to play defense, something he hates doing because he knows what he has to defend is has no possible defense.

We will later get into Insane’s theory of his cadaver odour playful molecules which states that Maddie’s body produced a “smoker’s room” effect in the apartment but for now we would like to focus just on 2 parts of his response: the time needed for the cadaver odour to be detected by the dog and what he would do in the current investigation if it was up to him.

About the time needed for the cadaver odour to be detected by the dog he starts to say that people are confused about it as “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”, then states that the “MINIMUM time required before the dogs can detect the odour” has not been established and follows all this with a “From other work, it could potentially be considerably less”.

Not “approximately 90 minutes” but “considerably less”. Note, not slightly so but considerably so.

This “considerable reduction” in the time in which a body starts to develop cadaver odour for it to be detectable by EVRD dogs allows people like Insane to defend that the abductor, or burglar turned abductor, could have killed Maddie at around 21.15 and that in approximately 40 minutes (at 22.00 Smithman is seen by the Smiths) the body could develop the odour with sufficient levels of concentration to produce a “smoker’s room effect”.

It cannot be earlier than 21.15, because that’s the time Gerry allegedly leaves the apartment after supposedly having seen his own his daughter. The tale is limited by this, she can’t have been killed before that.

Also, in this tale, the body can only remain in the apartment for a maximum of 40 minutes after death, allowing 5 minutes for Smithman to reach the Smiths at 22.00. Later we will see that this time has to even less.

With the “considerable shortening” of the time needed to develop cadaver odour, Operation Grange would then be able to conclude that the markings by the EVRD and CSI dogs inside the apartment were that of a bungled robbery turned into a murder with the body being removed from the scene of the crime approximately 40 minutes after time of death.

The second point Insane raises is the possibility that remains of a small child could be now found somewhere near Praia da Luz and the body be declared to be Maddie: “All I will say on that point is that most victims are found fairly close by, and that goes for all scenarios, including abduction”. and “If I had to decide what to do next, I would consider widescale searches of local landfill sites and the local area generally with cadaver dogs”.

And there you have what we call the Third Option in a nutshell:

Someone, not McCann or any other T7, tried to rob the apartment where the McCann family was staying. Between 21.15 and 21.30, by accident or out of need he kills Maddie behind the couch. At 21.30, to avoid Matthew Oldfield, he moves the body to the closet. Waits for approximately 25 minutes and then exits the apartment. On his way he crosses with the Smiths. He buries the body somewhere in the outskirts of Praia da Luz, which is only found in 2016.

Or maybe it was found in 2014 by Scotland Yard but only now will this discovery be revealed.

Please note that it is NOT Insane who enables the Third Option, it’s Scotland Yard that does that. Insane only is trying to provide on the internet some sort of “scientific” support to it.

It is Scotland Yard that creates those approximate 40 minutes that allow the development of cadaver odour when they introduce Crèche-Dad in the 2014 UK Crimewatch.

According to Redwood on Crimewatch, the man was taking his daughter home from the night crèche, albeit seen walking in a different direction to that which would be logical by someone coming from said crèche (Discrepancy 11 of our post “UK Crimewatch - Discrepancies II”) and who either has an amazing memory to remember 7 years after the exact clothes he wore on May 3 2007 (do you?) or then has only one jacket and one pair of trousers in his wardrobe.

If Tannerman is real, as we think he is (only not an abductor and Jane Tanner is not being accurate as to where from she sees him), then the body would have stayed very little time inside the apartment.

The reason we think Crèche-Dad was invented was exactly to allow for the abductor to continue inside the apartment so that Scotland Yard could say, as it has said, that there’s reason to think that Maddie didn’t leave the apartment alive.

The EVRD dog markings in the apartment allow the Scotland Yard to make such a statement. And that dog could only have marked anything if the body remained some time inside that apartment.

Crèche-Dad, a Scotland-Yard creation, is the person who allows that to happen. He is the one that effectively allows the abductor to be inside the apartment for a period of approximately 40 minutes if burglar killed Maddie as soon as Gerry left the apartment and if he only left it 5 minutes before he was seen by the Smiths.

It is the Scotland Yard (or whoever is pulling its strings on this case) that owns the Third Option.


3. Third Option v Whitewashing & Archival

We have said and will repeat until our voices go hoarse that the only realistic and sensible option that Operation Grange has is to go for the truth. We are realistic enough to understand the obstacles put against this option may be so significant that Operation Grange may be forced into the only other realistic but sensible option, the archival.

We are also aware that unlike us, many people think that what the Operation Grange is only interested in working in another option: Whitewashing.

We have given our reasons why this option is no longer possible in our post “The death of a Whitewashing”.

What makes the Third Option different from the Whitewashing one? Third Option has no patsy.

We have said that the impossibility to find a plausible patsy was always the reason we never believed the whitewashing would go ahead.

Third Option puts the blame on an unknown man, the Portuguese paedo. It has to be a Portuguese one because Portuguese laws protect privacy, and this allows to point to a faceless, nameless man that the authorities just have not been able to identify, much less catch.

To say it was a British paedo, then a name would have to be given and a name always allows inconvenient questions. Third Option has that covered, as there’s no one to cross check.

What makes the Third Option different from archival if it means the case would continue to be unsolved? It validates abduction.

With the Third Option no one, not even the McCanns are to blame for Maddie’s death. It clears them, and anyone else but the unknown abductor, of that.

Most importantly, the Third Options terminates any other line on investigation. Anything but abduction would be ruled out.


4. Reasons to opt for Third Option

Besides the mentioned above, the Third Option has the big advantage of riding the negligence wave initiated by Katie Hopkins on February 21.

Third Option portrays the McCanns and the other T7 as a dastardly negligent lot, who went out on a the lash every night leaving their kids alone in the apartments and which leaves out everyone else.

It only includes a stranger and the T9. No one else.

Join Insane’s words in his response with those from Mr Twitter’s that it was a Portuguese paedo the one wot done it, and that is what we call the Third Option.

To note that Insane and Mr Twitter have very similar opinions about the case – and very similar reactions to those opposing them – that one could be led to think they are both one and the same. Both are disgusting. One calls the locations where the EVRD marked cadaver odour as toileting spots and the other (or other persona) states that Mr Amaral is the head of a child sex ring. Disgusting.

We, at the blog think the Establishment may just be tempted to fall for this sirens song, to implement the Third Option.

As it leaves the death on the hands of an unknown, Maddie would end up just another unsolved crime and the dastardly McCanns would be forever dastardly. But only they would be. Plus, they would just be negligent and not murderous.

Quite tempting isn’t it? It would please many, many people and it really seems tailored for what they’ve struggled for all these years.

 1  - Leonor Cipriano killed her daughter
 2  - Joana was never found
 3  - Maddie disappeared in 2007
 4  - McCann couple was cleared

Maybe the reason why the paper edition of Correio da Manhã of March 3rd, wrote that the McCanns had been cleared. The sub-article “Missing children in the Algarve never found” was to complement the main article of that day, which was that the body of Rodrigo Lapa had been found the previous day.

Well, back on the 3rd day of May 2007, in a small town just west of Lagos in the Algarve, a group of people when they saw themselves with a body in their hands whose death could open a very naughty Pandora’s Box about the adult fun that was happening in that town and its outskirts, thought that the best idea was to make up an abduction.

Usually “best ideas” that involve “making up” things end up in disaster.

And that’s exactly what happened with that “2007 best idea”: it resulted in a humongous and very, very costly and expensive disaster.

If it’s decided to go for the Third Option, it’s because the Establishment will have decided the best idea is to go for the making up of a bungled burglary by a Portuguese paedo.

It will have a “best idea” and it will have the “making up”, so no more ingredients are needed for certain disaster.


5. Reasons not to opt for the Third Option

As a sidenote, we would be very curious as to where and what body would be found.

The where, just to understand where they would come up with a square inch of terrain that wasn’t searched in 2007.

To what body, we would be equally curious to know because as we believe Maddie’s body no longer exists, for us any body now “found” cannot be her. That being the case, we also would be really, really curious if the Portuguese authorities would go along that far in this farce.

Also someone would have to explain why Operation Grange called in Robert Murat and the Hills for questioning.

But disregarding the above, let us show why there are 4 reasons that make a Third Option a really complete disaster: Sean McCann, Amelie McCann, Eddie and Keela.


6. The McCann twins

There’s a huge moral reason to not go for the Third Option , the McCann twins, Sean and Amelie.

The Sun’s article #2, “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'”:, is very clear that Kate says the twins know all.

To know all, we suppose is for them to know exactly what happened. And if they know exactly what happened then that means they know what was, is and will be a farce and what wasn’t, isn’t and won’t be.

The implementation of the Third Option would mean a farce in which only their parents would take the fall.

And because the Third Option involves an unknown someone – the unknown abductor – in this farce no one would be accountable for their sisters’ death. If, as Kate implies, the twins know who should be accountable then the farce would be particularly cruel to them.

Let’s for a minute imagine that it was Kate (we are NOT saying it was her just describing a possible scenario) who accidentally killed her daughter. We have said before that we think the accident happened when she was in the apartment accompanied by David Payne and that it happened in the middle of a heated episode between the two.

In this scenario, the twins knowing this, how would they feel about seeing their mother take alone the full burden of the blame while David Payne continued his life as if nothing of what happened had to do anything with him?

Worse, what if in what we propose above wasn’t Kate but David who accidentally killed Maddie? What would the twins feel then but him walking away unscathed?

Their parents would have to carry forever the stigma of negligence, something Kate has told us the twins know was not the case, they know their parents were never negligent.

Will the Establishment have the courage to punish further these two really innocent bystanders, Sean and Amelie, already collateral victims who have had their sister taken away from them?

Will the Establishment have the courage to burden these two children with a stigma they would have to carry for the rest of their lives? A burden they would carry with the added weight of knowing, as Kate tells us they do, that their parents would be unjustly punished by the state.

Even if they aren’t old enough now to fully understand all that Kate tells us they were told, they will soon reach an age at which they will.

Very soon they will reach an age they will really know without Kate having to tell us they do. Probably the very reason why Kate McCann is asking for closure now.

It’s up to the Establishment, or the state, to know if it has the courage to do that.


7. Eddie, Keela & Apartment

But besides this enormous moral question, there is factual reason why the Third Option is not an option.

The Third Option has to explain the dog markings: in the apartment, the McCann clothing and only their clothing, the cuddle cat and the Scenic.

These markings are FACTS the general public knows about and will obviously want to know how they fit into the Third Option tale.

The Third Option as detailed above would explain only 2 of the 4 of the dogs markings: cadaver odour behind the couch and near the closet in the bedroom.

It could even be stretched, as we will later show, to explain the marking of the cadaver odour in the flowerbed, so we will say it does explain 3 of the 4 markings.

What it doesn’t explain is the blood Keela marked in the same location that Eddie did behind the couch.

The problem with that blood marking presents to Third Option, beside the exact same location as one of cadaver odour, is that there was no visible blood.

It doesn’t matter if Insane bursts a vein shouting there was no blood found in that apartment because the general public trusts and believes in Keela’s nose, and knows if she signalled blood that’s only because blood was there.

The general public has absolutely no doubt Keela marked blood in the exact same location signalled by the EVRD dog, behind the couch.

And if it took a CSI dog to mark that then it could only be that the traces of said blood weren’t visible to the naked eye. They were minuscule traces of blood.

And “minuscule traces” are the key words here.

Because they mean that the burglar/abductor/murderer (to simplify we will call him abductor from now on) cleaned up.

But he cleaned the blood with what? Where are the cloths he used to clean the blood up?

Did he use water? Because if he didn’t then when one wipes blood with a dry cloth one creates a smear. Where are the smears?

If he used water, where are the wet and bloody cloths?

And wouldn’t he be risking being interrupted by the Tapas checking system while cleaning? Gerry McCann had allegedly walked in and 15 minutes later another man, Matthew Oldfield, supposedly does the same, so when did he find the opportunity to do the cleaning and guarantee that he wouldn’t be interrupted?

Not to say, under such pressure would he even care about cleaning up?

Also, why blood behind the couch and not in the closet? Did he clean up the floor AND the body and is the reason why it didn’t leave traces of blood anywhere in the bedroom?

A murderous abductor is already very hard to swallow, we would even go as far as saying only the “gullible” (and not even the gullible) will believe in that tale. A cleaning tale is just far too ridiculous.

The Third Option can only go for the coincidence of a nosebleed in the exact same location Maddie would die later. That would be another pill very few will even attempt to swallow.

But if a nosebleed, where is the blood that comes with a nosebleed?

It seems blood seeped through the tiles so it had to be quite a significant quantity of it. Kate doesn’t speak of cleaning any blood and she does go down to the detail of tea stains.

And no cleaner speaks of cleaning blood in that apartment.

So what did Keela mark? Blood certainly, but why so little vestige of it? It simply doesn’t fit with an abductor.

About what Eddie marks in the flowerbed, Insane has given 2 options: fertilizer with human bones and apartment 5A being built on top of a medieval graveyard.

We assume that whoever is responsible for deciding to apply or not the Third Option is somewhat more intelligent than Insane.

We believe that to circumvent this problem the Third Option will say that the  abductor first thought of leaving the apartment by the back gate and was interrupted for some reason. He laid the body down on the flowerbed to check if his exit route was clear. For some reason he decided instead to leave the apartment via the front door.

Third Option must take into account that this takes away precious minutes of the body being in a confined space in a closed apartment. Both are needed to produce the “smoker’s room effect” and this effect will be needed as we will see later on.

Plus, it not only takes away those precious  minutes but it also means that the sliding door is opened twice (to walk out and then walk back in), allowing for the free circulation of air.

But we see no other explanation for this marking in the flowerbed outside the ridiculous human bones in fertilizer or medieval bones and we have already said that we think that whoever is responsible for the Third Option is smart enough not to be as ridiculous as Insane.

If the Third Option overcomes the blood question, we would say it could get away with what happened in the apartment.

Maybe it will pull out of the hat a kind of  “JFK wonder bullet” (which we spoke of in our post “When Nations lie to their citizens”) on this issue but we do think no one will believe that Maddie would have bled from her nose only in minuscule quantities and right where she would later die.


8. Eddie & Scenic

But the real problem the Third Option has is the Renault Scenic and the EVRD dog.

About that, not even Insane can come up with a plausible excuse:

“Anonymous 24 February 2016 at 17:25,

Not Textusa: "I already gave you my more logical alternative, which is that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour in the car because of secondary transfer"

1. Not Textusa if there was a secondary transfer what was the primary source of the cadaver odour and where was it?

2. Who was contaminated to then become the secondary source?”

Insane’s reply:

“Not Textusa 24 February 2016 at 17:59

1) I think it's a fair hypothesis that the primary source was likely to be Madeleine's body, but that cannot be proven beyond all doubt at this stage. If that is the case, secondary transfer probably took place in the apartment.

2) It's not necessarily who. The apartment itself, if contaminated, can become a secondary source, as could a contaminated item.”

How does this fit with an abductor? It doesn’t.

Unless the Third Option adopts Insane’s “Cadaver Odour Playful Molecules” theory.

Even Insane has to recognise that for the EVRD dog to mark the Scenic the McCanns had to be impregnated with cadaver odour from Madeleine. Three weeks after she disappeared.

He ventures that it was either from their direct contact with the body (“but that cannot be proven beyond all doubt at this stage”) or by secondary transfer by apartment. Yes, you read it right. And that’s the reason why we say Insane’s molecules are playful.

If in direct contact with the body, then Maddie wasn’t abducted. That will make the Third Option crumble on its foundations.

The McCanns having direct contact with the body means the general public will ask the 6 questions we listed in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box” post and the Establishment will have a very difficult time in answering them if it doesn’t want to come clean, if it doesn’t want to be truthful :

1. Why did the case take so long to solve?

2. Under what circumstances (who, why, when, where and how) did Maddie die?

3. If Maddie died in the apartment, why was body taken away from it?

4. If Maddie died in apartment and body taken away, where was it taken to between 10pm – 4am and subsequently on the following hours and days?

5. What happened to Maddie’s body and who and why did they help for that to happen?

6. Who protected the McCanns and why were they protected the way they were?

If the Establishment doesn’t want to go for the truth then it’s quite evident that direct contact cannot be used to explain the marking by EVRD dog of the Scenic.

Only left is “contamination-by-apartment” AKA Insane’s theory.

We hope that now the reader fully understands why we interrupted our summer break 2015 to write the post “Playful Molecules”. We were seeing the Third Option taking form and acted accordingly.

To exempt the McCanns from direct contact with the body then them being contaminated would not be a secondary contamination but a tertiary one.

- Primary contamination, by airborne molecules, body to apartment.

- Secondary contamination, by airborne molecules, apartment 5A to McCanns’ clothing if impregnated by apartment.

- Tertiary contamination by direct contact (or also by airborne contamination). McCann’s clothing to Scenic key fob (very strange that seats of vehicle were not contaminated) and Scenic boot.

The contamination of cuddle cat would have supposedly been by secondary contamination if impregnated like the McCann clothing or tertiary if contaminated by these.

The only explanation the Third Option could give for boot contamination would be laundry (not seeing any of the McCanns sitting inside it) but that would represent a quaternary contamination as it would have the impregnated clothing contaminating the bag (tertiary contamination) they were in and this bag would be what would contaminate the boot (quaternary contamination).


9. Concentration v contamination

To sum up, Maddie was killed and in less than 30 minutes (please take into account trip to flowerbed), her body developed cadaver odour with a concentration level enough to impregnate apartment and cause “smoker’s room effect”.

This odour “cloud” floating in the air would to be strong enough to enable the McCanns to walk into it and be impregnated with it. Only the McCanns as no one else seems to have been contaminated.

This impregnation by floating molecules would have to be strong enough to in turn contaminate cuddle cat and three weeks later the Renault Scenic.

And if we bring the laundry into the equation as we should, then strong enough to contaminate the bag that would contaminate the boot of the Scenic!

In less than 30 minutes after death a body develops a level of concentration of cadaver odour – and please do not discard the fact the sliding doors of the apartment were opened twice to allow the marking in the flowerbed – to produce all of the above. A level of concentration of cadaver odour to fill up a two-bedroom apartment and cause a “smoker’s room effect”.

The least we can say is that we are truly fascinated how no one noted this odour that night.

Yes, dogs detect odours we can only imagine we would, but to allow for a tertiary contamination (or even a quaternary one) based on airborne molecules we are certain that the primary source must have emitted an odour in such a quantity that would be detected by the human nose. And cadaver odour is a very strong and aggressive odour. It would not go unnoticed.

On the other hand, this theory makes every single room in the world where someone has passed away and remained there for just 30 minutes a cadaver odour contaminant bomb

And the longer the bodies stayed in those rooms, the stronger the potency of the contamination.

Anyone walking into any of those rooms afterwards would be contaminated with a level of concentration to cause tertiary and quaternary contaminations.

Also, it would mean that anyone who has ever visited a home for the elderly (unfortunately, we believe that in every single room of such institutions someone has passed away at one time or another) or who works there, according to Insane, is a walking “cadaver odour impregnation bomb”.

Not only visits to homes for the elderly but to any house in the world where someone has passed away. The likelihood of all of us having been in a room where someone has passed away one time or another during our life is enormous We are all impregnated bombs and we didn't know!

One wonders how Eddie did not turn on Martin Grime and the others present once they entered apartment 5A.

After all, wasn’t Martin Grime being impregnated by the playful molecules while Eddie was looking around? Surely he would have been if Insane is right. Eddie signalled the airborne molecules so they were there floating about, and if they were there then they would be impregnating Grime and the others, would they not?

After that, trusting Insane’s reasoning, the EVRD would be all over Martin Grime. Outside he wouldn’t mark the flowerbed but not leave Martin Grime’s legs whose trousers would have just been impregnated inside the apartment.


10. Time is not a friend of the Third Option

Insane, like any verbal bully merged into a conman, likes to fill his mouth with sound-bites. When debating anything related to science, one way someone wanting to dominate the discussion is to throw in a name of a study and/or scientist which they say supports their opinion. It catches the opposition unprepared and places it under immediate disadvantage. In poker it’s called a bluff.

That’s exactly what happens when Insane brings into the discussion the “Osterhelweg paper”. It makes him look intellectual and smart but he’s just being nothing more than disingenuous and deceitful.

He’s not even being specious. He’s inventing. He’s lying. The paper he’s referring to is “Cadaver dogs” a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares. Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.

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.

To state otherwise, as Insane does, not only is ridiculous, as Insane usually is, as is insulting to the scientific world, and he does claim to be a scientist, another one of his transparent lies.

Note that Insane’s 90 minutes are specifically about the “MINIMUM time required before the dogs can detect the odour” after time of death so Insane not only is as he knows he’s lying. Playing very poorly the role of the scientist he pretends to be.

Then, high from his pedestal of faked knowledge he states “From other work, it could potentially be considerably less”.

He doesn’t say which work he’s referring to, a standard procedure on his part. And we do advise readers not to waste any time trying to ask him what is the work he’s referring to because he’ll just, like anyone who has nothing but a handful of air to backup a statement, tell whoever asks him to go “research this themselves, as I have no intention of handing information to the pro lobby”.

However we do think the “other work” is no other that than the Osterhelweg paper.

Let’s now quote the relevant passage of that paper:

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

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

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

We think the “other work” is indeed this paper because it contains some sound-bites that taken out of context suit Insane’s rhetoric:“Within 45 min of the arrival at the institute”, “Within 15 min of arriving at the institute”, “were ‘‘contaminated’’ for 10 min” and “were contaminated for 2 min”.

45 minutes, 15 minutes, 10 minutes and 2 minutes all times “considerably less” than the 90 minutes he wants so desperately to reduce, otherwise there’s no way the Third Option can make any sense.

Unfortunately for Insane and to those trying to implement the Third Option can’t exactly because of the times that are referred to in the Osterhelweg paper:

- body A: start of investigation post mortem interval measured at 110 min + 45 min after arrival at the institute + 10 minutes of carpet square contamination = 110 + 45 + 10 = 165 minutes or 02H45 minutes.

- body B: start of investigation post mortem interval measured at 120 min + 15 min after + 2 minutes of carpet square contamination = 120 + 15 + 2 = 137 minutes or 02H17 minutes.

Nothing near 90 minutes, nothing to suggest 90 minutes and nothing, definitely nothing to suggest “considerably less” than 90 minutes.

Note that for any forensic pathologist a cadaver of 3 hours is the body of someone recently deceased. Outside hospitals, and even in them, we think it would be very unusual for a forensic pathologist to come in contact with the body of someone who passed away less than 3 hours before.

The Osterhelweg paper certainly does not help the Third Option.

The times it refers to are not in accordance with the short time – no more than 30 minutes – needed for the cadaver inside apartment 5A to develop cadaver odour with a concentration level strong enough to cause a “smoker’s room effect” that would in turn allow up to tertiary contaminations (if not quaternary ones).

No, the time needed to develop cadaver odour is certainly NOT a friend of Third Option’s very limited 30 minute window of time.


11. Conclusion

To validate the Scenic within the Third Option it means Insane’s playful molecules theory MUST be followed.

However, as we have shown, ridicule prevents that from happening.

Or as the Anonymous who first put the question to Insane responds correctly to his reply in which he says “The apartment itself, if contaminated, can become a secondary source, as could a contaminated item”.

The censoring is ours:

“Anonymous 24 February 2016 at 18:41 

Are you insulting my intelligence on purpose or just being an *rse? Rhetorical question”

The only other explanation to justify the ERVD dog marking the Scenic, the McCanns having direct contact with the body, simply cannot be used with the Third Option.

The only option left for the Third Option is to discredit the dogs.

Discrediting would be really a foolish thing to do. It would be really, really stupid. Some have persistently tried in the past 8 years with absolute no success.

There are countless cases where these dogs were used with success and were decisive. The public won’t buy it and will be angry.

Even Insane believes in the dogs and that says all doesn’t it?

What the Establishment has to realise is that the majority of the public does indeed believe in negligence, but the negligence they believe in comes hand-in-hand with death-by-parents. No, not by a Portuguese paedo, not by any other paedo, in fact not by anyone else but by either one of the parents or by one of their T7 friends.

That is because the majority of the public wholeheartedly believes in the dogs. They trust them beyond any doubt whatsoever, and rightfully so. And in 2007 the dogs pointed unequivocally to the McCanns and the public has not forgotten that nor will ever forget.

No, the general public public does not think golfers did it even if on that day they played one killer game which people like Mr Twitter could try to use to explain the cadaver odour in the Scenic.

Again Mr Twitter shows the quality of his researching.

Kenneth Walkden, who we spoke of in our post “Chasing cars & doctors” says this on April 29 2008: “I can confirm that none of the passengers suffered any wound or illness, none had wounds or bled. I can state with all certainty that nobody died in the vehicle”.

Michael George Wright: “During the period that I used the vehicle no-one was wounded or had wounds that bled, nor was any cadaver transported nor did anyone die” (Carta Rogatória - 04, Statements 1).

The Third Option cannot be validated because of Scenic and EVRD dog.

Realistically, it also can’t because of the CSI dog and the blood that was marked in the apartment.

Morally, because of the McCann twins.

To conclude, the Third Option is just not an option.

If tried, it’s fair to say a serious warning of disaster was given.

We continue to believe that there are only 2 serious options: truth or archival. The last won’t solve anything, it will only delay the inevitable.


POST SCRIPTUM  #1 (13MAR16 10H00):

Concerning Insane’s “scientific expertise” in what pertains the Maddie case we think the following dialogue that we captured from the TV Series The People V. OJ Simpson – American Crime Story (Episode 3) representing a meeting of OJ Simpson’s legal team discussing tactics to follow on physical evidence is quite a read: 

Alan Dershowitz - You know what, time is short so let’s get to your biggest obstacle, the overwhelming physical evidence, all of which seems to support the conclusion that OJ did it.

Robert Shapiro - Ok, we understand that, so why don’t you tell us something we don’t know, why don’t you suggest something?

AD  - Barry? 

Barry Scheck  - Well, how much do you gentleman know about DNA evidence?

RS - Pretend not much…

BS - That’s ok, because not a lot of people do. But it is on the verge of revolutionising criminal law, in a couple of years it will be at the crux of any case of violence without eye witnesses.

RS - Can you see DNA through a microscope?

BS - No, a DNA molecule is about 2 nanometres in width where a human hair is about 80 thousand nanometres, so it presents representation with electrons and scanning tunnelling, atomic force microscopes…

RS - Ok, ok, cut to the quick… can you use DNA to show it was someone else?

BS - Not at all, I mean the chances of one individual’s DNA profile matching another person is extremely small, it is roughly one in a billion.

RS - Great, we’re screwed! What’s your contribution here anyway?

AD - Hold on Bob, you’re so emotional…

RS - Oh, c’mon, c’mon…

AD - Barry, clarify your strategy.

BS - Ok, I’m not going to contest the DNA matches, I’m going to keep them out of court entirely! If it can be shown that there may have been errors in the collection or the handling of the samples used for the prosecution’s DNA analysis we could contest the validity of the evidence itself! At best, we get some of it thrown out, at worst we get the jury to question it, the very idea!

AD - We will attack every assumption, question every single molecule of evidence, every aspect of how that molecule was gathered, handled and analysed! We will disrupt their presentation of physical evidence at every turn! We will hack at them! Make every piece of evidence presented either thrown out, untrustworthy or confusing! No quarter!

The OJ Simpson trial was in 1994/1995.

Over 20 years ago.

Yet, the tactics to disrupt the credibility of physical evidence do continue to be used to this day. And so familiar to us all in this case.


POST SCRIPTUM  #2 (13MAR16 13H20):

 

It is circulating on the internet this response to a FOI:

“Freedom of Information Request Reference No:

I note you seek access to the following information:

How many Police officers and civilian staff were on this operation [Operation Grange] on 30/11/2015 and 31/12/2015, respectively.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

1 Detective Sergeant and 3 Detectives Constables are dedicated to Op Grange, they are attached to, and under the supervision of, a full Murder Investigation Team, these numbers did not change for the time period you specified.

Information Rights Unit”

People are picking up that it now has been clearly said by Scotland Yard that Operation Grange is a murder investigation.

One must never forget that in this case there’s always a catch. One should never take anything for its face value. Only after one finds the catch can one fully understand the messages being passed.

Indeed, Murder Investigation Teams (MITs) investigate “murder, manslaughter, attempted murder where the evidence of intent is unambiguous” but also investigations into missing persons and abductions:

“Murder/Major Investigation Teams (MIT) are the specialised homicide squads of the Metropolitan Police in London, England. Forming part of the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, itself part of the Specialist Crime Directorate, there are 24 MITs within the Met. MITs investigate cases of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder where the evidence of intent is unambiguous, or where a risk assessment identifies substantive risk to life. They also undertake investigations into missing persons or abductions where there is a reason to suspect life has been taken or is under threat and other investigations identified for specialist needs.”

It could be said that they only look into abductions where life has been taken or is under threat. Other than “parental abduction" is there any other abduction that does not fall under this remit?

And it can’t be denied that the McCann version of Maddie’s abduction (there is no official one) does.

And lest we forget Operation Grange’s remit spoke already spoke of homicide:

“The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.”

And before one says that the remit gives leeway for it to be a serious crime instead of homicide, one has to understand what the SCD 1 is all about:

“The Homicide and Serious Crime Command (SCD 1) is an Operational Command Unit of the Metropolitan Police responsible for the investigation of homicide and other serious crimes in London. Most of their work is carried out by Murder Investigation Teams, of which there are 24. In addition to the MITs, there are also five city-wide units:

- The Central Criminal Court Trials Unit works with the MITs and Crown Prosecution Service on cases that go to trial at the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey. The unit also advocates good practice and procedure through the Policy Unit, Forensic Science Services and the Detective Training Academy.

- The Special Projects Investigation Unit reviews serious crime investigations and conducts primary investigations in certain cases.

- The Coroner's Office ensures that investigations are correctly undertaken within the legal constraints of the powers of the Coroner. Coroner's Officers have a key role as liaison between Operational Command Units, the Coroner's Office and the families of the victims. They also attend the scenes of unexplained deaths to support officers by identifying possible causes of death and advising on scene preservation and the recovery of the deceased.

- The HOLMES Support Unit supports police forces nationwide in their use of HOLMES, the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System.

- Forensic Review Support staff review current or historical scenes of crime evidence. The unit works with the Specialist Crime Review Group and Homicide Units and provides advice on forensic evidence recovery including forensic science advances.”

As can be seen, the MIT is the basic operational unit of the CSD 1. So to say “Op Grange, they are attached to, and under the supervision of, a full Murder Investigation Team” is exactly the same as saying that it is under the supervision of one unit of the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1, as per remit.

We’re afraid to say but in this context the word murder is meaningless. This document only tells us what we already knew, that Operation Grange was downsized to 4 people.

Much more revealing than this response was Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe when he let it slip that it was indeed a murder when he appeared on Eddie Nestor on BBC London on Tuesday 07OCT14, 3 days after Brenda’s death, is just a sign of this:

“But in terms of that file [Dossier], what happened if you recall was that the family [McCanns] handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liaising with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live...”

Here the word murder means murder. No abduction associated with it.


This document, as we said, adds nothing and takes nothing. It’s meaningless. But there are other positive signs out there. For example, we are noticing some very visible signs of wear on the other side.

They are getting sloppy in their replies on Twitter:

They are “busy” they say.

Maybe busy tidying up the house before the sky falls down on their heads?

As a friend of ours has said about how the McCanns look in her opinion: “they feel exhausted and betrayed and in the words of a Lawyer friend of mine, set up to fail”.