1. Introduction
We inform readers that there will be a Part 3. This part became too long so we decided to divide it.
Last week’s post we showed how Keela, the blood dog, alerts to blood and only to blood in all its states of decomposition.
No one argued against this, not even our critics. Their criticism was centred on the alleged “fact” that Eddie also alerted to blood from a live person which immediately begs the question, why call these EVRD dogs “cadaver dogs” at all, if one of their alerts would be to a substance coming from a living human?
We pointed out that, if correct, would invalidate Eddie’s alerts to any links established between Eddie’s alerts in the Scenic and the possibility of a body having been there.
The other aspect we focused on and also no one contested it, was that human decomposition scent is completely different from that of the one released by stand-alone blood spilled from a living human being, however decomposed it may be.
Human decomposition and blood decomposition scents are 2 different scents and unless someone gives us a valid reason for them to be confused by a dog’s nose – and we’re not seeing which – we will consider them completely different and distinct.
2. Eddie, a Keela 2.0?
There are dogs that are cross-trained to look for both dead AND alive people.
For example, a dog tracking in a wilderness situation where the dog is looking for a person who may be alive or dead. The alert given would be the same for an alive or dead person. The dog reacts to both scents because that is their mission. These are obviously not EVRD dogs. Training EVRD in both live and dead scents is completely absurd.
In fact, a dog trained in 2 scents both scents, dead and alive, in forensics would only be useful if he gave different alerts to each one of the scents, like lying down for live blood and barking for cadaver scent.
We’re not sure if this training is even possible but one thing we do know and something we are absolutely certain of is that having an EVRD dog trained to alert to 2 different scents and giving the same alarm to both, is ludicrous.
Yet, that is exactly what some are trying to convince us is what happened with Eddie the EVRD dog. Twelve years into the case, we now discover that he was after all, an EVRD & blood dog. A Keela 2.0, a souped-up blood dog.
People seem to think that because what Eddie alerts to, human decomposition, is much more complex than blood decomposition, that Eddie is a dog with superior performance than Keela. It’s exactly the opposite.
The scent of decomposed blood in much blander, when compared with the pungent one from human decomposition. The reason why Eddie signals areas and Keela to locations of inches. Making a golf analogy, between putting a ball anywhere on the green from 30 ft out or making a 30 ft putt with a ball already on the green, which is harder, which requires more concentration?
Eddie puts the ball on the green (the whole inside of the Scenic), Keela putts it (locations of blood in the boot). A blood dog requirement is one with a greater attention span and much less distracted than the EVRD one. The “simpler” the scent the higher is the performance required by the dog.
Saying that a dog is first trained in blood and then evolves to EVRD, is like saying that one first graduates from university and then achieves a high-school diploma.
Are we saying that Keela is more important than Eddie? No, each has a mission and they are both equally relevant. What we are pointing out is that saying that a dog is upgraded from a scent to another is ridiculous. It takes a lot of time, effort and money to get a dog trained, certified and kept certified for a specific scent.
3. Levels of concentration
It is certain that, as JBLitllemore points out, Martin Grime says quite clearly that human blood was involved in Eddie’s training:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134602049562271745
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Vol. IX p. 2480 EVRD "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains AND BODY FLUIDS INCLUDING BLOOD in any environment or terrain." Martin Grime statement. So, as Syn said ... fluids with blood in as per Jersey etc. #Mccann (my caps)
12:26 AM - 1 Jun 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134603019490869249
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
J B Littlemore Retweeted J B Littlemore
And in the next sentence MG said "The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still born decomposing piglets." #Mccann
J B Littlemore added,
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134602049562271745
12:30 AM - 1 Jun 2019
We maintain what we have said about a dog being trained for 2 scents. To understand how Grime’s words do make sense and in no way invalidate the usefulness of the EVRD dog, one has to go back to basics. Real basics.
We are going to start with concentration of molecules. There has to be a level of concentration of airborne molecules present above which a dog’s nose is triggered.
Let’s imagine that we have 2 dogs, Rose and Jasmine. Rose has been trained to alert to the scent of roses, Jasmine to jasmines.
The first thing to do is to determine from how many respective flowers in a flowerbed, will a scent have a level of concentration that will trigger the dog’s nose.
Let’s imagine that for Jasmine, after various tests, it was determined that for her nose to be triggered it was necessary to have from 2 to 4 jasmines in a flowerbed.
That meant that if Jasmine alerted to the scent she was trained for, it meant that there were 2 or more jasmines present in the flowerbed.
It didn’t matter how many other flowers were in the flowerbed. It didn’t matter how many jasmines, lilies of the valley, gardenias, chocolate cosmos, sweat peas, frangipanis or wisterias were there, it only mattered how many jasmines there were. If Jasmine alerted, in all those flowers there were at least 4 jasmines.
But there could be less than 4 jasmines present, there could be only 2 (the interval being 2-4) and Jasmine could still alert. Likewise, there could be from 1 to 3 and Jasmine could not react at all, producing the understandable and expected false negative.
As said above, an alert meant more than 1 jasmine and it gives the certainty of the presence of more than 3 of them.
Let’s abandon flowers and transport this to the Maddie case scenario. It is believed that a body needs to be in situ for an hour and a half post-mortem before it produces enough cadaver compound to contaminate a surface with enough to release the concentration level of airborne molecules of its scent to trigger a dog’s nose. The hour and a half represents the 4 jasmines in the analogy. Meaning the body could have been less time in situ, and the dog alert to it but the fact that a dog doesn’t alert to a location doesn’t mean that a body was not present. It only means that no body that had diseased within an hour and a half was there.
Past that hour and a half (or more than 4 jasmines in the analogy) the dog will always alert as there will be enough concentration of the scent in the air to trigger its nose.
4. Independence of scents
Back to the flowers, let’s imagine for Rose, it was determined that she needed 3 to 5 roses to give an alert. For Jasmine, we remind you that the minimum concentration interval was 2 to 4 flowers.
If one was to put them both of them near the flowerbed with an undetermined number of an undetermined number of different species of flowers, one of the following 4 hypotheses would happen: neither dog would alert, only Jasmine would, only Rose would and neither would.
If neither dog reacted, that would mean that in the flowerbed there were 1 or less jasmines AND 2 or less roses.
If only Jasmine reacted, that would mean there were jasmines in the flowerbed, it could be 2 or more, most likely more than 4 AND there were less than 2 roses, most likely none.
If only Rose reacted, that would mean there were roses in the flowerbed, it could be 3 or more, most likely more than 5 AND there were less than 2 jasmines, most likely none
If both reacted, that would mean there were jasmines and roses in the flowerbed. In terms of jasmines, it could be 2 or more, most likely more than 4 AND in terms of roses, it could be 3 or more, most likely more than 5.
For the dogs, it wouldn’t matter what the number was of the other flowers present they would only react according to their scent, the one they were trained to alert and only that scent. No other.
Also, very important, the reactions of the dogs are just what they are.
But conclusions can be taken from the reaction of each individually or from their reactions together. If one was trying to find out if the flowerbed had roses, only Rose’s reaction mattered but if one wanted to find out if the flowerbed had or not flowers from either species, then one would have to see the reaction of both dogs to come to any conclusion.
5. Interchangeability of scents
It’s easy to see that in no way, would Jasmine alert to roses nor Rose to jasmines.
But and that is what we are trying to determine, is under what circumstances could that happen. Under what circumstances, if any, could Jasmine alert to a rose?
The first idea to come up would be to create a hybrid flower, out of the 2 species. A rosmine, so to speak, half a rose, half jasmine. Would that do the trick?
No. Even if one put together a 1,000 rosmines in the flowerbed, Rose would not react because that flower had no scent of roses and neither would Jasmine because it also didn’t have a scent of jasmine. It would have the scent of rosmine and only a dog trained to alert to rosmines would react to the scent from these flowers.
Scents are not interchangeable. Or be confused one with the other. And no scent is an upgrade of another.
6. Object and substance
It is now important to introduce the two concepts that are the key to solving this mystery: object and substance.
A rose as a flower is an object, a visual thing, everyone can see what it is. If one holds up a rose and says “here is a rose” no one questions or doubts the statement.
But Rose, our rose dog, does not react to that object but to its unique fragrance. The fragrance is emitted by its floral tissue, the petals. There lies the substance that emits the fragrance.
If one was able to remove that substance from the flower, Rose would simply ignore the plant, the object. For Rose a rose is only a rose because it smells like a rose and not because it is a rose.
If one would put the substance in another object, Rose would say – give the alert according to her training – that it was a rose.
So, when one picks up a rose (object) and says “I’m smelling a rose (fragrance)”, the same word has 2 different meanings.
If one was given a piece of paper to draw what flower one had just smelled, one would draw immediately a rose, without hesitation. And if blindfolded, one would again draw the same flower: the distinctive fragrance (substance) represents the flower (object).
7. Contamination
In this context and in layman and non-scientific terms, it is the adherence of a substance to an object.
If one was able to create an ointment reproducing the scent of a rose – which we are certain it is – if one was to put some of it on a knife, a human would identify the object as a knife but our dog Rose would “say” that it was a rose.
Whenever Rose “says” that it’s a rose, she’s always referring to the substance and not the object and she is always correct.
Only humans refer to objects. Rose’s trainer will say that it is a knife contaminated with rose scent, referring to the object and coming to a conclusion about what Rose “told” him via her alert.
8. Contamination of reference object
Continuing to use the flowers and our 2 dogs, Rose and Jasmine, what would happen if we were to contaminate a rose with jasmine?
If one was to spread jasmine ointment on a rose, just like the knife above, one would end up with a rose contaminated with jasmine scent.
A reference object, a rose, contaminated with a reference scent, jasmine.
If the ointment when spread on the rose was invisible to the eye, as it would be very likely, a jasmine scented rose would smell, in terms of rose scenting, like exactly any other rose because even though it has been jasmine scented it never stops being a rose. It would be a rose that would be just emitting jasmine scent together with her own scent. Two scents in the air from the same object.
To be clear and to the point, would the jasmine scented rose stop emitting its own rose scent? No.
Both dogs would alert to that rose. Jasmine would be alerting to jasmine and Rose to the rose. Both would just be reacting to the respective substance they were trained for.
But didn’t Jasmine just alert to a rose? Yes, she did, to the object rose.
She did not alert to the fragrance emitted by the substance in the rose petals but by the jasmine fragrance producing substance that the rose was contaminated with. A jasmine contaminated rose.
Hope readers are now seeing where this is heading, the importance of the difference between object and substance.
It wouldn’t be incorrect to say that Jasmine alerts to roses if the phenomenon of having jasmine contaminated roses was not uncommon. In fact, if it was frequent, anyone familiar with the subject and half a brain would understand that within the context of “flower forensics” when one said that Jasmine alerts to roses, it would be to the object, the flower (contaminated with jasmine scent), and not to the scent of roses.
Why? Because Jasmine reacts only to jasmine scent. To no other scent.
Anyone working within a “flower forensics” environment would know that and would not confuse things.
For the sake of simplicity, when we refer to substance, we will be referring to the fragrance emitted by a substance. For example, when we say Eddie reacts to cadaver compound, we mean he reacts to the scent emitted by that substance.
9. Absorption by blood
We recommend readers read this article:
https://www.blooddogtraining.com/
“Scent is created from dried skin particles known as scarf. Scarf will waft from the body, and that of any animal, at a rate of 10,000 particles per second. Each animal has a distinct aroma of scent associated with its species and individuality. Simply put, everyone and every animal have a distinct odor which can be identified via smell. The acute abilities of the dog's nose aid it in identifying those differences. Blood is on the inside of the body, and it's wet. No dried skin particles can develop inside the body, only on the outside.
So how does the dog know what to search for? When the blood from a wounded animal drips from the skin of that animal, its scent is absorbed within the blood. When your dog is brought to the spot where blood appears, he is directed to locate that particular animal. If trained properly, he will only track the animal whose scent he smells. Does this really work? Consider this, when tracking a wounded animal, generally the blood droppings will cease, but the dog continues to track the correct animal. Why? He is following the scent (dried skin cells) trail left behind by the animal, and not just its blood droppings. If you can identify the location where the deer was standing when it was shot, the dog will track that particular animal, even if there is not visible blood.”
Could we be any clearer than this: “When the blood from a wounded animal drips from the skin of that animal, its scent is absorbed within the blood”? No, no one could.
And is the dog following the scent of blood or is it following the scent of the particular animal in that blood?
We hope the reader can now see with clarity how blood, in terms of scent, can be a contaminated object and not the source of scent in itself (without stopping being a source of its own scent as is evident).
10. Eddie and his “blood” alerts
Once one understands the importance of the contamination of the reference object, in this case blood, all becomes simple and clear.
Now the reader can understand why we made the effort of differentiating what is very different: human decomposition and blood decomposition.
This is what we have said we thought was the process of stand-alone blood decomposition:
This is what we think is the process of the decomposition of blood, when first inside the decomposing body and then after it exits it:
Within human decomposition, one of its elements integrating with that decomposing process is blood, it decomposes together with the rest of the body.
We imagine that once outside the body, the process of human decomposition stops but the blood continues to decompose as the biological that it fluid it is.
It is obvious that there is live blood and there is dead blood. Mr Thompson appears to have deleted a tweet in which he said something like “Live blood? Dead blood? God give me patience...”.
Live blood comes out of a live human being not contaminated by human decomposition. It’s stand-alone blood, it decomposes by itself, according to its own process.
Dead blood is the blood that has left a human dead body.
Eddie reacts to the object blood but when he does that, he’s only reacting to what he is trained for: the cadaver compound that has contaminated the blood.
The end result of blood decomposition of live blood is just dried blood, to which Eddie doesn’t react, but the end result of blood decomposition of dead blood is dried blood contaminated with cadaver compound, to which Eddie reacts.
That is the only scent that he reacts to. No other.
11. JBLittlemore having almost nailed it
Readers will remember us saying that JBLittlemore had ALMOST nailed it with this tweet:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134078606404149248
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Textusa 12.40 2. Eddie alerted to DRIED blood + the scent of human decomposition (compound), like it or not. Keela was his counter operational canine in effect. I have never stated Eddie’s alerts are to be ignored but they must be corroborated in some demonstrable manner. #Mccann
1:46 PM - 30 May 2019
If he had said, “Eddie alerted to DRIED blood + the scent of human decomposition (compound) or to be precise: dried blood contaminated with human decomposition, like it or not. Keela was his counter operational canine in effect. I have never stated Eddie’s alerts are to be ignored but they must be corroborated in some demonstrable manner. #Mccann” he would have nailed it. Completely.
He would have been correct in saying what Eddie was alerting to in the blood, he would be correct in saying that Keela is Eddie’s counter-operational canine in effect and he would have been correct in saying that to determine to whom the blood and cadaver scent belonged to, the dog alerts that prove the existence of blood and the presence of a cadaver - must be corroborated in some demonstrable manner.
Frog asked this:
“Fragrant Frog 2 Jun 2019, 23:57:00
Dog A didn't alert to the boot of the Scenic, so why was Dog B required to meticulously examine the boot interior?
Hypothetically,
if a living person had suffered a previous substantial blood loss
inside one of the other nine vehicles in the line-up, is it your
contention Eddie would not have alerted in the absence of actual cadaver odour?”
To which we replied with this comment:
“Textusa 3 Jun 2019, 10:38:00
Frog,
Because
for dog A, the inside of the Scenic is the target he has located. The
entire inside. As Martin Grime says “This then produced an alert
indication at the lower part of the driver’s door where the dog was
biting and barking. I recognised this behaviour as the scent emitting
from inside the vehicle through the seal of the around the door.”
Eddie doesn’t point locations. That’s Keela’s role.
The fact that Eddie was not deployed inside the Scenic is another proof that he is not a blood dog, because if he was one, he should have been and he wasn’t. Alerts to blood are localised, alerts to EVRD are not.
“If a living person had suffered a previous substantial blood loss inside one of the other nine vehicles in the line-up” it is our “contention Eddie would not have alerted in the absence of actual cadaver odour”. Even if that car was parked on the left next to the Scenic. Eddie would go between the two cars and signal ONLY the Scenic, the way he did.”
Eddie doesn’t point locations. That’s Keela’s role.
The fact that Eddie was not deployed inside the Scenic is another proof that he is not a blood dog, because if he was one, he should have been and he wasn’t. Alerts to blood are localised, alerts to EVRD are not.
“If a living person had suffered a previous substantial blood loss inside one of the other nine vehicles in the line-up” it is our “contention Eddie would not have alerted in the absence of actual cadaver odour”. Even if that car was parked on the left next to the Scenic. Eddie would go between the two cars and signal ONLY the Scenic, the way he did.”
As an example, saying that the blood on the key FOB is Gerry’s, then only Keela’s alert is explained because Eddie would never react to Gerry’s live blood.
12. Conclusion
When Eddie reacts to the Cuddle Cat, as he did react, does anyone say that Eddie was trained to react to cuddle cats as well? That he’s an EVRD & Cuddle cat dog? Of course not.
So why say that Eddie is trained to alert to blood just because he alerted to blood, when the exact same logic applies?
Because pros like Mr Thompson, JBLittlemore and NotTextusa want to mislead. Because Cuddle Cat is not a reference object and blood is, it’s very easy to mislead.
 |
| (picture from this tweet) |
But they haven’t misled anyone. Twitter silence is a clear evidence of that. People are only confused, it’s impossible for this game-changing argument to have passed for 12 years without anyone noticing. People know that what these people are saying is absurd but they are lacking the tools to counter this more than evident absurdity.
We hope we are giving people the tools they lacked to fight these camouflaged pros.
In Part 3 and hopefully the final part we will focus on the training of the EVRD dog, deployment of both dogs on the Maddie case and why this all is so, so damning to the hoax.
And also explain why Mr Thompson made a huge, huge blunder when he first tweeted about this. And explain the cats in the opening pictures.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1136017436971610114
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Grime is very vague about how Eddie's alerts were defined. Given that Textusa has assured us Eddie would ignore copious amounts of dried blood in favour of cadaver odour, I'm not sure my reasonable logic can explain why Keela wasn't deployed where Eddie had alerted....
10:10 PM - 4 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136021762213388289
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @FragrantFrog
You believe Textusa?! Eddie alerted to dried blood as well as cadaver odour. In locations where Keela didn't identify/alert to the same points as Eddie, it was therefore NOT blood providing the source scent that he'd marked (i.e. cadaver odour only he would ID). So, helpful?
10:27 PM - 4 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1136024449227141120
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @JBLittlemore
In Textusa I trust. 🤪😜😎
You;re getting there. Eddie did indeed alert to dried blood from both the living & the dead (pigs aside). So why was Keela denied the opportunity to examine a room in which Eddie had alerted on 2 separate occasions?
10:38 PM - 4 Jun 2019
*****
Eddie did NOT alert to dried blood as well as cadaver odour. Eddie alerts to cadaver compound in blood, he does not alert to blood.
Frog,
DeleteCould you please clarify which "room in which Eddie had alerted on 2 separate occasions" and Keela was denied the opportunity to examine you are referring to?
Thank you.
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1136275376630575105
DeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Dear Frog,
Please have a look on Textusa's blog, the message :
Textusa5 Jun 2019, 09:58:00
Frog,
Could you please clarify which "room in which Eddie had alerted on 2 separate occasions" and Keela was denied the opportunity to examine you are referring to? Thank you. #mccann
3:15 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1136285235765809153
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @umweltbuerger
Dear Mari, Please explain to Textusa I'm a busy person. Here's the link; play until 5m50s. Eddie can be seen alerting on 2 occasions in locations not related to where CC was produced from. https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8
What caused Eddie to alert to the counter & beside chair? #mccann
3:54 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
Who says Eddie alerted? Are the counter &beside chair in the report as locations alerted to? No, then they weren’t alerted to.
Interesting point for those who say that the airborne scent spreads and glues itself to all… why isn’t counter referenced as alerted location? The Cuddle cat was inside it, and it certainly would have contaminated the inside of the counter, so, according to you, once the toy removed from there, Eddie should have continued to alert there, right? He doesn’t, why?
Frog, what has this to do with which room in which Eddie had alerted on 2 separate occasions and Keela was denied the opportunity to examine?
Dear Textusa Sisters
DeleteHope you don't mind. I posted your Q on twitter to Frog who kindly replied as follows :
Green Leaper
@FragrantFrog
Replying to @umweltbuerger
Dear Mari,
Please explain to Textusa I'm a busy person.
Here's the link; play until 5m50s. Eddie can be seen alerting on 2 occasions in locations not related to where CC was produced from.
https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=220 …
What caused Eddie to alert to the counter & beside chair? #mccann
Trusting you can spot the alerts.
Kind Regards,
Mari
Mari,
DeleteAs you can see above, not only we didn't mind as we thank you!
You have upset Mr Thompson!
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1136292233110577153
Didn't you know he's lord and master of Twitter? He is the one who determines who tweets and what about they can tweet!
Thank you for letting me know.
DeleteI haven't seen mr Thompson's tweet. Hoping he feels better now.
Maybe if he can present his letter of appointment as twitter controller I'll have a look at what he has to say.
Gerry contacted Meredith Hughes, Grime’s supervisor at S Yorkshire Police.
ReplyDeleteThis was an opportunity to ask how the dogs were trained and what they were alerting to.
If the McCanns were aware Eddie alerted to live blood, why not challenge all of the dogs’ alerts as being only alerts to dried blood, with only the key fob blood being identified as G’s?
They could have challenged the findings of fact about the alerts, but they chose not to?
This needs laying to rest once and for all and Grimes gives you the reason and the difference between the dogs himself, the words are out of his mouth not second hand. Eddie alerts by barking while Keela goes still and points her nose to the location, why this? To stop possible contamination from the dog to samples collected, so there you have it plain and simple, Keela was trained specifically for evidence retrieval to be identified where crimes had been committed. Eddie alerted by barking so where would the sense be to use him as a blood dog where he could cause contamination to Dna and evidence as been proposed. Sorry it just does not make sense that an expert in such a field as Grimes would do this not only to his reputation but his dogs. Lets put is this way if Eddie was such the bees knees why even bother training Keela at all? This because the dogs had and did different jobs and that's why Grimes used his knowledge about his dogs to their best abilities. So for those who keep insisting Eddie was still a blood dog then Grimes knew then and still knows more about his dogs than you and his reputation worldwide speaks volumes, how about yours?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, it's Grime not Grimes. Secondly, Martin Grime makes it very clear that Eddie alerts to blood from a live person. Thirdly, Martin Grime trained several dogs, not just two. Eddie was reaching the end of his career. Why doesn't this blog just post the truth from the files instead of reams of text that are nothing more than invention?
ReplyDelete"Martin Grime makes it very clear that Eddie alerts to blood from a live person", he doesn't.
DeleteThe alerts to blood from a live person wording is from a translation.
We will deal with this in Part 3 and before you say anything, yes, you will have to wait.
How do you match "They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being" with "He is not trained for 'live' human odours" which are both from the exact same translation?
DeleteQuite easily. A live human odour would be sweat or fresh blood, as in blood that has not yet dried.
DeleteYou know, there's actually no point in discussing any of this with you. I believe you know you're wrong but as always, are too invested in your theory to admit it. For you the thrill lies in trying to convince people you're right, when you know fine well you're not. Especially if you can convince people that those who are right are all part of some conspiracy and discredit them in the process.
You're not here for the truth and never have been.
Please just pamper us a little bit more.
DeleteSo Eddie would alert to dried sweat? You know, a fresh live human odour that has dried up...
Dried saliva? Dried nasal excretion? The list can go one and on...
Only if it was mixed with blood. Why don't you contact Martin Grime and let him know you think he was wrong about what Eddie was trained for?
DeleteAnonymous 5 Jun 2019, 13:57:00,
DeleteCan you please provide a quote from Martin Grime or from any site to corroborate that?
Thank you.
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1136198488335757312
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
What, in the holy fuck is this bollocks?
Either Textusa has lifted your graphics @DaveHallCoLtd or you've given permission for them to be used to illustrate his insanity & lies.
Either way, diabolical. #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8SWfoJW4AE9UJa.jpg
10:10 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by JBLittlemore and Jules]
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136204959987445760
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
There's more? #Mccann
10:35 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by Jules and Sade]
*****
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1136207887548784640
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @JBLittlemore @DaveHallCoLtd
Its infinite, clearly 🙄
10:47 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by Jules and JBLittlemore]
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136214013522710531
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
I will possibly dare to look later ...
11:11 AM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1136216987015663616
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @JBLittlemore @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
It's ok JBL I've read it.. In a nutshell, Tex is denying Martin Grime says Eddie alerts to dried blood from a live human..
Loads of doggie & flower pics..
I now can't drive or operate machinery for the entire day.. #McCann
11:23 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by JBLittlemore]
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136220700421906438
Replying to @Jules1602xx @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
Heavy medication then? Antihistamines +++ with all those dogs and flowers you describe?
But why the flowers?
11:38 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by Jules]
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1136222090640711681
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @JBLittlemore @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
😫😫😫
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8Sr8hnWkAA5Kd-.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8Sr9-6X4AAe4Ng.jpg
11:43 AM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136224760273260544
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Jules1602xx @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
What? Is he suggesting decomposition odour is akin to roses?
11:54 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by Jules]
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1136226760750764032
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @JBLittlemore @SadeElishaa @DaveHallCoLtd
He's saying Eddie only alerts to dried blood from a dead human..
He can't grasp what Martin Grime has said.. He also can't grasp why 2 dogs are used.. He also can't grasp what dried blood is..
As for the flowers...? Same as the NotFrog effect.. 🤓
12:02 PM - 5 Jun 2019
[Tweet liked by Mr Thompson and JBLittlemore]
*****
JBLittlemore surprised there was a Part 2, when we made it clear there would be right from the introduction and title and when both Jules and Mr Thompson (in an unpublished comment) demanded we hurry up and write it. Just pointing out how these people now lie shamelessly.
“Is he [Textusa] suggesting decomposition odour is akin to roses?”. Decomposition odour is a scent. Rose scent is a scent. What, in terms of them being scents them one from the other?
No time to read but time to tweet.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136253286611378176
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Have read now (Textusa). 1. A tweet takes seconds between other things. Reading T's blog needs focus - & the rest! 2, Not surprised there was a part 2 but rather taken by surprise it had landed already. 3. I note the continued need to use my tweets to mock me. Stop it.
1:47 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1136348813365522432
SheLLxx ©The Shelminator ㊙ @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Text is a tw@t JBL, excuse the use of the world but Tetxt is....
Text doesn't understand 'sound reasoning' whatsoever, it's, we say it is, so, it is, end of story...
Only it isn't...You know why they're scared of you? Because you speak facts and common sense. It's very telling.
8:07 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136350355929915393
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx
That is kind and I am flattered - but not deserved. Sadly sticking to what is factual encourages folk to suspect more about one than is warranted. One hopes it isn't too late for a certain blogger to learn said facts but my efforts are spent, for now at least.
8:13 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1136350936945893377
SheLLxx ©The Shelminator ㊙ @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @JBLittlemore
I think you've been here long enough for it to be deserved JBL.
Perhaps we should just let the sheep bleat? And keep just doing what we do, even a negative reaction is a reaction.
More people see what they're doing than you may realise...
8:15 PM - 5 Jun 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136254795436756994
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
It's suggested on Textusa blog the only 'proof' accepted that EVRD also alerted to dried blood as well as/in addition to cadaver odour would have to come from M Grime's own words. Here they are. Note 2nd para, final sentence re CSI dog to 'refute the presence of blood'. #Mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8TI9wgW4AAgOdK.jpg
1:53 PM - 5 Jun 2019
[Picture attached says the following:
“It is the mission of Forensic Canine operatives to locate and accurately respond to the presence of generic human decomposition odour and dried human blood. (Victim Recovery Dog) This will be conducted in any, and all, expected operational contexts, environments and climates likely to be encountered when deployed by the host agency. This will include: surface and sub-surface deposition on land or in water, trace evidence, human decomposition odour transference, and crime scene investigation for generic human blood deposits. The remote screening of items of property and clothing will be included to assist in forensic recovery and provision of case intelligence
- A human blood specific detection dog (HBDD) will be supplied to provide a recourse that may be deployed as a stand-alone blood detection canine, or in association with a human decomposition detection canine. This allows for the further investigation of responses by the VRD to confirm the presence of human decomposition and refute the presence of blood.
Tactic applied in homicide cases to good effect.
- Both resources will 'search to contact' in large open areas, buildings, and vehicles, conduct property and vehicle line up screening, and conduct screening tests within a laboratory type context.”]
*****
JBLittlemore,
An intellectually honest individual would always provide a link to the full document of a snippet s/he publishes, so that their critics could understand the full context of the content of that snippet.
So now it’s Keela that CONFIRMS the presence of human decomposition? How?
Let’s imagine for a minute that we subscribe to the absurd theory that Eddie alerts to both blood (substance) and cadaver.
And we will even use the Maddie case as an example: the living-room.
The blood Maddie spilled there, we believe to have been mostly, not to say totally, not contaminated with human decomposition. She spilled it when she was alive or soon after her death. Blood we have called live blood in the post. The blood we said in the post that Eddie does not react to but for this minute of insanity we will agree that he does.
To understand our question you must now do like we do and for a minute believe in what we believe: the body was there in the living room for over an hour and a half.
So to be clear, in this minute of total absurdity, we both believe that in that living-room there was blood not contaminated by human decomposition AND the presence of a human dead body.
Eddie comes in and alerts. What is he alerting to? Blood or cadaver? We don’t know. Bring in Keela in and she alerts to blood.
Does that confirms that Eddie’s alerts were to blood only? Is that what is Keela’s confirmation? To eliminate from the investigation the location of a dead body when there had been one but that has to be ruled out because blood is also present?
Note, in the scenario we BOTH believe in, for an absurd minute, Eddie DID alert to human decomposition that was near the live blood, or according to both of our temporarily insane mutual belief to both cadaver and blood, but Keela comes in and she says that, no, it’s just blood, no body.
Is that how Keela’s confirmation works? Seriously?
Let’s stop the absurdity because it is indeed absurd.
We hope you realise that what you have tweeted is VERY MUCH DAMNING to the body having been in the Scenic as we will explain in Part 3, as it’s part of deployment of the dogs.
PS – Can you please provide the link to the full document? We would love to read it.
By the way, having this knowledge, why clean up thoroughly after removing a body, with bleach and all?
DeleteOne just has to let a few drops of fresh blood on site and the police will never be able to tell!
If the only forensic evidence of the presence of a dead body is an EVRD dog alert, then any fresh blood on site simply eliminates it!
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136298024089636866
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
J B Littlemore Retweeted J B Littlemore
You do not understand, do you Textusa. Before knocking me & the post, ensure you have read the image correctly. In M G's own words, where the CSI dog is used after the VRD it is to REFUTE the presence of blood ... because the VRD also alerts to blood. #Mccann 1/2
J B Littlemore added,
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136254795436756994
4:45 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136300921225392128
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Nowhere does the image state CSI confirms cadaver, Textusa. It refutes blood. You twist & invent nonsense to mock. As to the suggestion I am not intellectually honest for not giving you the link, I tried to spare you .. but here you go. MG -
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf Enjoy!
#Mccann
J B Littlemore added,
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136254795436756994
4:57 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
presence the possibility that is reaconfirming is?
The text says: “This allows for the further investigation of responses by the VRD to confirm the presence of human decomposition and refute the presence of blood.”
Breaking down that sentence about the use of the “human blood specific detection dog (HBDD)”
“This allows for the further investigation of responses by the VRD to:
- confirm the presence of human decomposition
- and refute the presence of blood.”
If it doesn’t say what we said it does, then yes, we stopped knowing how to read.
Irrelevant of confirmation, do you agree that a few drops of fresh blood invalidate any and all EVRD alerts?
As said, we will deal with this in Part 3.
Thank you for the doc.
Censored comment received from Mr Thompson:
Delete“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
You still don't get the part about forensic confirmation, do you?
Dropping fresh blood at a crime scene? Great idea...if you want to explain why your blood is at a crime scene. If of course you had a perfectly reasonable explanation for your blood being at the crime scene, the dogs would still alert to any other blood, which would also be tested by forensics. In short, you dripping blood about the place would achieve fuck all.
(Censored, twaddle).
The dogs are indicators, they tell forensic teams where to look. The sooner you accept this, (censored, drivel)
(Censored, blather)
(Censored, gibberish). Do keep going though.
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 5 Jun 2019, 18:44:00”
*****
Mr Thompson,
Please quote us where we have said anything that contradicts this: “The dogs are indicators, they tell forensic teams where to look”.
While you look for that quote, we will republish what we said in our comment at 2 Jun 2019, 21:18:00 on our previous post:
“Lets’ explain this like we would explain to Mr Thompson’s 8 yr old son of a friend of his:
It’s like zeroing in on a target. Dog A picks a large target, then dog B picks a smaller target in dog’s A target and then humans come and pick even a smaller target in that smaller target! Isn’t that cool?
Dog A goes in, alerts. Then dog B comes after dog A because dog B is more precise than dog A. After dog B, the CSI people come, you know those guys from the TV series? Those guys are more precise then dog B.”
In the above where does it say that we don’t accept that “The dogs are indicators, they tell forensic teams where to look”?
Then who said the criminal would leave his or her own fresh blood on the crime scene? We only said that leaving fresh blood, any fresh blood, would invalidate any cadaver alert by an EVRD dog because it could be blood, according to your theory.
And if the police found the blood to be from Bansky – meaning it was evidently planted – they couldn’t do anything about it because to Eddie’s alert there was indeed blood present justify it.
Because it could be blood, any blood, there was no way for the police to determine the presence of a dead body.
So, from now on, any criminal who has to move a body, all she or he has to do is have a vial of blood, from literally anyone but anyone who could link them to the crime, stolen from an hospital or wherever.
But, let us show you a particular situation where someone might have left his own blood to throw the police off: Gerry and the blood on the key fob.
If your theory was true, then on seeing the dogs sniffing around the apartment, and speculating completely, who is to say that Gerry, a quick-thinker, knowing that he had indeed transported the dead body in the Scenic and knowing that fresh blood would invalidate any EVRD alert, cut himself and contaminated the object with his own fresh blood and left it on purpose to be alerted to and so no one ever know the Scenic served to transport the body?
So that 12 years late some would state adamantly they believed the body has never been ther?
Did you think about that? Please tell us, according to your theory, why that would not be possible.
You're still not getting it.
DeleteFirstly for your theory or suggestion to hold any weight you'd need to prove it, otherwise, as with most of your narrative, it's purely guesswork, and as you know, guesswork doesn't put people in jail.
Secondly, whether Gerry bled on purpose or not, Keela made other alerts, these didn't invalidate a cadaver alert, they simply meant there was no evidence of a body having been in the car, which was my original point. A point you've wasted many hours of your life failing to disprove.
Thirdly, you do know that not all EVRD dogs are trained the same, don't you?
Of course you don't. You're only just learning.
Here's some homework for you. How many cadaver dogs were in use in the UK when A. Eddie was in PdL, and B, when Eddie was first trained.
You know, it would have been much wiser gonna be either asked me all of this before you dug a hole the size of your ego, or actually done some proper research without inventing things regarding a topic you know nothing about.
Anytime I can be of assistance, you can message me.
Mr Thompson,
Delete“Firstly for your theory or suggestion to hold any weight you'd need to prove it, otherwise, as with most of your narrative, it's purely guesswork, and as you know, guesswork doesn't put people in jail.”
We are not part of a lynch mob and reject in the clearest terms the idea that we see ourselves as judge, jury and executioners. We trust in the legitimate judicial institutions of sovereign nations and in their regular functioning.
“Secondly, whether Gerry bled on purpose or not, Keela made other alerts, these didn't invalidate a cadaver alert, they simply meant there was no evidence of a body having been in the car, which was my original point.”
Dog A alerts to peanut-butter and jam. Dog B only to peanut-butter. Forensics has no capability to date, other than dog A’s alerts, to physically check the presence of jam, only that of peanut-butter.
Before a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich Dog A says I smell something, could be peanut-butter, it could be jam. Dog B comes in, I can solve that for you, it’s peanut-butter.
Human forensics then either determine whether there is peanut-butter or not.
Where has the determination of the presence of jam gone? Out the window.
“Thirdly, you do know that not all EVRD dogs are trained the same, don't you?”
If that is so, what class/grade/category EVRD dog was Eddie? Please provide a link to the different training methods, thank you.
Are you by chance saying that some EVRD dogs are trained only in EVRD, while others in EVRD and blood? But we thought you believed that the dogs were first trained in blood and then in EVRD…
“Here's some homework for you. How many cadaver dogs were in use in the UK when A. Eddie was in PdL, and B, when Eddie was first trained.”
3,812? Did we pick the right number? No? Oh, how about 514 then? Not that either? 6,732? 35? 775? 2? None?
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1136198488335757312
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
What, in the holy fuck is this bollocks?
Either Textusa has lifted your graphics @DaveHallCoLtd or you've given permission for them to be used to illustrate his insanity & lies.
Either way, diabolical. #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8SWfoJW4AE9UJa.jpg
10:10 AM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/DaveHallCoLtd/status/1136219280129822722
DaveHall @DaveHallCoLtd
Replying to @SadeElishaa
I'm not guilty! I thought they looked familiar! I wasn't asked, no. However a lot of my stuff crops up all over the place, stuff from even 12 years ago. I don't mind sharing, as long as peeps don't claim they "made" it. Only happened a couple of times. #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8SpX_fWwAAtI9N.png
11:32 AM - 5 Jun 2019
[Picture attached says this:
“Eddie: Hey! That’s us innit? …
Keela: Think we should demand royalties?”]
*****
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1136239423325167616
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @DaveHallCoLtd
Well I would care when they're being used to spread lies, but then again he probably wouldn't have even considered it appropriate had you not tweeted an image basically validating his stupidity.
12:52 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/DaveHallCoLtd/status/1136244698891325441
DaveHall @DaveHallCoLtd
DaveHall Retweeted 00Sade 🕵️♀️
I could not give a rat's what you say about anything.
Get back on your perch. (parrot emoticon)
#mccann
DaveHall added,
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1136239423325167616
1:13 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
We inform readers that we did not ask for any permission to use part of the picture that was used in the post.
We acknowledged authorship and used something that was in the public domain.
https://twitter.com/skymartinbrunt/status/1136275963053039620
ReplyDeleteMartin BruntVerified account @skymartinbrunt
#MadeleineMcCann Home Office has approved another year’s funding - £300,000 - for the Scotland Yard investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
3:17 PM - 5 Jun 2019
*****
This throws further down beyond October, into 2020.
So, it’s assuming new PM won’t get into power and archive case immediately.
That, of course, if nothing happens before May leaves Nº10.
So Martin Brunt's made a reappearance on the scene then. Interesting! Haven't heard a whisper from this particular abduction supporter for ages, wonder why we hear so little from him lately? In fact, he's not been that prominent since the Brenda Leyland outing.
DeleteHe doesn't miss a trick when it comes to the Madeleine hoax though. I Wish he would have some b**ls and open his mouth.
How many hours have you spent trying to discredit the dogs now, textusa? No matter how hard you try, you can't change the facts. Once more, from Martin Grime's rogatory statement:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver"
Answer: "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."
Let me just repeat that last part:
"They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
Just admit you're wrong, again. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion that a body was in the Scenic, but know it's only an opinion, and not one you can back up with evidence.
My opinion is backed by evidence of blood and a lack of evidence, ie none, that there was a body in that Scenic.
So cut out the white noise, the flannel, and the outright lies.
One more time, the quote from Martin Grime when discussing Eddie:
"They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
Mr Thompson,
DeleteWe have shown why but we will repeat it again, the phrase you keep repeating is not a direct quote from Martin Grime but a translation of a translation.
It is very noticeable that you and your friends are holding on to that phrase like a desperate man holding to a clump of grass trying to save himself from falling of a cliff. Desperate times indeed.
Three times you repeated it in the comment.
Please inform us in what way we are dissing the dogs. Thank you.
We say that Keela alerts to blood and only blood. We say that Eddie alerts to cadaver odour and only to cadaver odour. We even say that their alerts are so accurate and reliable that they serve by THEMSELVES as evidence in a court of law, without any further forensics. The Portuguese justice system agrees with us.
Your and your friends, by saying that Eddie alerts to both cadaver and blood scents are rendering him useless as your “Secondly, whether Gerry bled on purpose or not, Keela made other alerts, these didn't invalidate a cadaver alert, they simply meant there was no evidence of a body having been in the car, which was my original point” from the other comment clearly shows.
Your words, Eddie alerted but Keela’s alerts “simply meant there was no evidence of a body having been in the car” meaning in practical terms that Eddie is useless.
You do realise that people have their own eyes and can read for themselves, don’t you? We know you hate that.
You may say a thousand times that we are dissing the dogs and only your blind followers, those who won’t read what we have said and will trust your word for it will believe you. Those we are glad they are not on our side and we wouldn’t want them to be.
All others will read and decide whether you are telling the truth or id your repetitive “you’re dissing the dogs” is something you say to convince yourself because you need to have someone to validate yourself and if no one else comes, then that job is left for you to do it yourself.
When we say that you are dissing the dogs, we provide the reason for making that statement: by saying that Eddie alerts to both cadaver and blood you render Eddie useless.
Censored comment from Mr Thompson:
DeletePseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
So just to be clear, you're accusing those who translated the files of deliberately misrepresenting Martin Grime and his dogs.
You do this despite other quotes from Martin that are in English only, stating the exact same thing.
You've also been shown alerts that back up Eddie alerting to dried blood from living people.
You've also heard from Syn who spoke to Martin on many, many occasions, and confirmed the same as I've told you.
In contrast, you've provided no evidence to support your claims on - and let's be honest, a topic you have very limited knowledge of, and one that you'd foolishly made a decision about before you'd even read the police files.
(Censored, drivel)
(Drivel censored)
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 6 Jun 2019, 10:56:00
*****
Mr Thompson,
“So just to be clear, you're accusing those who translated the files of deliberately misrepresenting Martin Grime and his dogs.”
Who is accusing anyone? You said Grime said this and you quoted. We said that’s a translation of a translation. You saying that we accuse anyone of deliberately misrepresenting just shows your despair.
“You do this despite other quotes from Martin that are in English only, stating the exact same thing.”
Quotes please.
“You've also been shown alerts that back up Eddie alerting to dried blood from living people.”
Where?
“You've also heard from Syn who spoke to Martin on many, many occasions, and confirmed the same as I've told you.”
Are you sure you want to continue to throw Syn under the bus? JBLittlemore wised up and didn’t bring her up any more. Suggest you have a word with her before you continue to use her name.
1. I quoted at least one example back to you, you didn't read it properly, from a Mirror article, a direct quote from Martin Grime.
Delete2. The tissues that were used to clean up after sexual activity are just one example
The key fob is another.
3. Syn asked for her comment to be made public.. I have her full permission. Stop typing nonsense.
Mr Thompson,
Delete“1. I quoted at least one example back to you, you didn't read it properly, from a Mirror article, a direct quote from Martin Grime.”
This is a reply to us asking you for quotes after you said this: “You do this despite other quotes from Martin that are in English only, stating the exact same thing”
“Other quotes, plural”. You have returned with only one.
And one which is beyond pathetic.
It comes from here:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/how-sniffer-dogs-signalled-scent-14141404.amp
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/05/blood-and-evrd-dog-part-1.html?showComment=1559299607893#c8583371511860882743
Mr Thompson under the guise of Anonymous, put in the following comment:
“Anonymous31 May 2019, 12:22:00
"When the dog indicates in the field, it will either be human decomposition or human blood," Martin tells the documentary makers.”
The above is quoted from here, and it’s clear that the word “dog” mentioned by Grime refers to both dogs, Eddie and Keela:
“Spaniels Eddie and Keela travelled to Portugal with their handler Martin Grime, and were sent into 5A one at a time to see if they could smell anything.
"When the [respective] dog indicates in the field, it will either be human decomposition [when Eddie] or human blood [when Keela]," Martin tells the documentary makers.
Then Grime follows the above with 2 paragraphs, speaking in one about Eddie and the other about Keela. That’s where he individualises the dogs. He doesn’t mention names even though the individualisation is clear:
"The human decomposition is very persistent, very pungent to the point where we've been able to locate, in blind searches, graves 40 years after the body has been removed and the body was only there for a short period of time.
"With blood, crime scene investigators have been to the house and somebody has cleaned the blood up to the point you can no longer see it. That doesn't mean there isn't any there to find. It might drip through the gap and run round the back of the floorboard, but odour will still be coming through the gap in the floorboards and the dog will pick it up and respond to it."
And to be clear that he’s referring to both dogs the reasoning above is concluded with this:
“It means dogs [plural] could give an alert to possible scents from long before the McCanns stayed there.”
Dogs, he’s not mentioning one dog but both dogs. A 8 yr old wouldn’t be more pathetic in trying to twist his words.
But then he names Eddie and is very specific (our caps):
“Eddie, who was trained to smell traces of human cadavers [where’s the blood?], was sent in first with Martin and ran through the whole apartment.
"Eddie's behaviour changed the moment he came through the door of the apartment," investigative journalist Robbyn Swan tells the camera. "He became tense and aware.
"The dog handler said Eddie DIDN'T ALERT IN ANY OTHER SITUATION EXCEPT WHEN HE SCENTED THAT WHICH HE WAS SEEKING: THE SCENT OF A HUMAN CADAVER [where’s the blood] "
(Cont)
(Cont)
Delete“2. The tissues that were used to clean up after sexual activity are just one example
The key fob is another.”
The key FOB is not another. If it was Gerry’s blood then only Keela’s alert is explained, it doesn’t explain Eddie’s one.
We will deal with the tissue from Operation Rectangle in due time. In fact, tissue isn’t the only matter to debate as there are 3 alerts that need to be debated. But as we said, we will deal with this later.
*****
“3. Syn asked for her comment to be made public.. I have her full permission. Stop typing nonsense.”
This shows how you twist words. Where have we said that you didn’t have permission. In fact, the fact that YOU have permission from Synonymph is VERY RELEVANT. As relevant as the fact that she was supplying JBLittlemore with material.
What we asked was whether YOU were sure YOU wanted to continue to throw Synonymph under the bus. And we suggested you talk to her and see if she agrees with the path you are taking.
Your “stop typing nonsense” is you go to response when you realise you’ve blundered again and it basically says “I’ve done it again, cannot help it must now drag with me all those whose shirts I can grab”.
If you have failed to notice, you are alone on the battlefield. Look around you, that should tell you something.
Pull the other one it's got bells on. All very convenient of someone to pop up out of the blue wanting conversations that Martin Grime himself is not allowed to make public himself. A full wall of silence has surrounded this case from the government down. No one involved in this case is allowed to talk unless it's about what suits, which is the abduction story. Payne was labelled a pedo to make sure he kept his mouth shut, I've no idea what Martin was subjected to to keep him from speaking out, but who needs enemies with friends like this. Unless she's in the loop she has no idea the trouble or the probelems she could cause for him, so that's why I'm inclined to believe she's a stooge.
DeleteFrom “FB Anon”:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099?fbclid=IwAR2WkvoZhEXNvWGL7DjxCR47tzV65ZhC5U9NKnFBWh3Uafc8gZBeyv8eQ5Q
According to news reports, Martin Grime gave evidence at the trial. Important sentence from the report: " Sniffer dog Eddie and his handler Martin Grime, who were involved in the hunt for Madeleine McCann and in the Soham murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, were called in. And Eddie pinpointed the exact spot where Bob's body lay."
If the dogs HAVE to work in tandem, as the lickspittles insist, then why didn’t MG take both Eddie AND Keela in the above case? The report says that MG only took Eddie.
FB Anon,
DeleteThe dogs did not work in tandem, as a body was found.
Keela wasn’t needed to verify the presence or absence of blood, so no reason for her to have been used.
From “FB Anon”:
ReplyDeleteThis is from Ben T on NT's site: "My opinion is backed by evidence of blood and a lack of evidence, ie none, that there was a body in that Scenic."
Ben says no evidence of a body, but surely the police must have had some intelligence about there being a body in the car, or why bother deploying Eddie to inspect the car? They didn't just do it on a whim!
From MG's report: Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door. This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.
Eddie alerts to "the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking." Keela is then deployed and alerts to "the rear driver's side of the boot area" The two dogs alerted to two different areas of the car, so how can Eddie be alerting to blood if Keela didn't alert also to the same area?
From “FB Anon”:
DeleteAlso in MG’s report - after Eddie alerted they searched for human remains, not blood.
What the heck is that nonsense. The dogs searched multiple areas upon instruction from Mark Harrison. Honestly textusa, why not tell your readers this. You're really clutching at straws now.
ReplyDeleteMr Thompson,
DeleteMark Harrison indicated that the searches should be for a dead girl. Meaning the proper dogs for that mission would have been brought in.
Eddie, to detect cadaver odour and Keela to detect, within the sites alerted to by Eddie if there was there blood or not.
We don't tell our readers anything, those who feel they have the some divine authority to tell people what to do are deluded idiots.
Agree, we are all witnessing a lot of straw clutching.
Keela was let into the car, Eddie wasn't. It's really very simple. All you're doing is confusing people. Is that your aim?
ReplyDeleteMr Thompson,
DeleteThis just shows your ignorance on the dogs. If Eddie had been brought into the Scenic he would bark saying “I smell cadaver scent inside this vehicle” which was what exactly he said when he barked outside the door.
Martin Grime’s words are from the original document, not a translation of a translation. Stop spreading this outright lie
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6 Jun 2019, 13:35:00,
DeleteThis is the translation from English into Portuguese made by the PJ:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR3/cr3_23.jpg
This is the translation of the translation, from Portuguese into English, made by the translators of McCannPJFiles:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7u59tYW0AAQ-p3.png
Where is the lie?
Comment received from Mr Thompson, which we have censored:
Delete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
The lie is everywhere, throughout your post and comments.
This:
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate
human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any
environment or terrain.''
is from the original profile prepared by Martin Grime, in the original english, un-translated form.
And you KNOW this
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Stop lying
(Censored, the usual drivel from Mr Thompson but who was so angry when he wrote this comment, when he got to here he forgot he was supposed to be Anonymous… )
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 6 Jun 2019, 20:03:00”
*****
Mr Thompson,
Please quote us where we have said that “'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain'' was a translation.
You are really starting to lose the plot, aren’t you?
We suggest that you please take this test:
https://screening.mentalhealthamerica.net/screening-tools/psychosis
To our more sensitive readers, we are not being evil towards Mr Thompson. We are merely “returning to sender” a comment submitted to us on June 2, which we didn’t publish for obvious reasons. Then, the content of the comment was not innocent nor is innocent its publication today. It was very easy to trace back from where exactly it originated.
About the phrase, “'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any environment or terrain”, we agree fully with its content as we explained in the post.
All body fluids including blood involved in the human-decomposition, a sub-set of the whole, will be contaminated with cadaver compound and so will emit cadaver scent.
By the way, according to you, it’s not only to blood that Eddie reacts to but other body fluids excluding blood. What doesn’t Eddie react to?
You're attributing comments to me that I haven't written. You're a liar and a fraud. Don't mention my name again as you'll get no response to this blog and any mentions of my name Will be reported to blogger immediately.
DeleteMr Thompson,
DeleteThere you go again thinking you can determine what other people can do, say, write or mention.
Who made you the sheriff in town?
By the way, we mentioned your name again. Best get reporting. You may achieve what you master was unable but who knows?
By the way, when you report the blog, could you please show Blogger this tweet?
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1128077554676584448
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Your pal, then tried to show how I was wrong...and failed, completely. I replied:
(censored)
Moral of the story for textusa:
Don't call someone out, if you can't back it up.
12:20 AM - 14 May 2019
PS: About you demanding that we don’t mention your name again, sorry, that’s not possible. We have to explain this we wrote in the post: “And also explain why Mr Thompson made a huge, huge blunder when he first tweeted about this. And explain the cats in the opening pictures.”
Because it was a huge, huge blunder. Very huge. So, yes, be certain we will be mentioning your name again, Mr Thompson.
Reported for very clear harassment and threats
Delete😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
DeleteOh, please don’t forget to show Blogger how Mr Thompson’s comment at 6 Jun 2019, 13:32:00 together with Anonymous comment at 31 May 2019, 12:22:00, shows very clearly how he likes to publish comments here anonymously.
A question for our critics:
ReplyDeleteFrom the document that JBLittlemore provided the link:
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
“Forensic Canine White Papers
A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of Forensic Canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development.
Martin Grime
Honorary Research Fellow (Burial Research Group, Forensic Canine Research and Development Group) School of Law, Policing and Forensics Staffordshire University
Honorary Research Fellow, School of Science and Technology Nottingham Trent University”
On page 12, it says this (the word SPECIFICALLY is written in the document in bold + italic and we decided to show that highlighting by putting in caps):
“4.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –FORENSIC CANINE MISSION CAPABILITY
HUMAN REMAINS DETECTION DOGS (HRDD): Sometimes referred to as a Victim Recovery Dog (VRD), or Cadaver Dog, will SPECIFICALLY discriminate, and detect, human deceased victims, inclusive of dismembered parts, in all environments / contexts, on the surface, sub-surface, on land, and in water. The dogs should be trained to generalise the spectrum of decomposition process to allow for the investigation of recent death to cold case historical remains. This type of detection dog may detect human blood as a sub-set of human decomposition.
- Canines trained with the inclusion of animal remains (pig, pork) cannot be referred to as HRDD
HUMAN BLOOD DETECTION DOGS (HBDD): Will discriminate, and detect, SPECIFICALLY human blood, that would not normally be located through visual examination due to size or placement. Should not respond to human decomposition. Training and proficiency validation should ensure that the canine is generalised to human blood odour specifically.
HUMAN DECOMPOSITION TRACE EVIDENCE DETECTION DOG (HDTEDD): Will discriminate, and detect, SPECIFICALLY human decomposition odour, to trace proportions, brought about by direct or indirect transference 813-04-2018from source. Training and proficiency testing should ensure that the canine is generalised to human decomposition odour. This role may be included within HRDD providing the canines olfactory detection threshold is so low as to be considered mission appropriate.
*****
“Victim Recovery Dog (VRD), or Cadaver Dog (…) This type of detection dog may detect human blood as a sub-set of human decomposition”
Isn’t this exactly what we have said in this post?
Exactly. Game over.
DeleteWe inform readers that we received this comment before Anonymous 6 Jun 2019, 21:16:00 was able to see it. If we were to publish them in the order they arrived it would seem that this Anonymous was supporting Anonymous 6 Jun 2019, 20:08:00, which was not the case.
DeleteThis is the only reason that we withheld it and are publishing it after, so it’s clear that there’s no link between the 2 comments.
Anonymous 6 Jun 2019, 20:08:00’s comment arrived in the sequence of comments submitted by Mr Thompson, so it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who it is from:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
No
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 6 Jun 2019, 20:08:00”
*****
Anonymous 6 Jun 2019, 20:08:00 (Mr Thompson),
How about explaining what the term means then?
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
DeleteHow about publishing the post, (censored)? How are you going to spin the word “No” as offensive?
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 8 Jun 2019, 11:10:00”
*****
What post?
Textusa - please explain why you think Grime deployed Keela inside the Scenic after Eddie had alerted to the exterior of driver's door but elected not to deploy Keela in a room where Eddie alerted in 2 separate places, having already failed to alert to CC in the lounge. IMO Grime appeared to be steering the intelligence-gathering towards a pre-determined target by his failure to rule out blood contaminant in the villa's dining area, which was contrary to his use of both dogs in 5A.
ReplyDeleteNo checks appear to have been done to rule out a previous death in the villa.
Frog,
DeleteWe would say that Martin Grime interpreted the alerts coming from objects in the villa and not from the villa itself. Him moving the Cuddle-cat and Eddie no longer alerting to the cupboard is a clear indication that it was the toy the source of emission.
Once determining that the alerts were on objects, there would be no need to bring in Keela because her confirmation or denial of the existence of blood would be done elsewhere.
Eddie did not alert to any specific item in the villa. He barked after putting his nose to the table then standing beside the chair. He also barked after raising his body to check a counter-top. Both pieces of furniture had several items placed on them (including a tub of what looks like Sudocream, an antiseptic/nappy cream). How could Grime be so positive Eddie alerted to the hidden toy when Grime himself went to the far cupboard first seeking the toy?
DeleteContrary to what you've written, we can't see Eddie in action after the toy was removed from the cupboard. However, if Grime was so sure the alerts were to the toy, what was the need for further screening of clothing, located in the same room as CC, to be undertaken at an unrelated facility?
Frog,
DeleteApologies for the late reply.
What you wrote is your interpretation of the video and we all know how biased is your opinion. Mind you, you are entitled to that bias, we are just pointing it out. But you saying that means when you say Eddie alerts in the video, that might not exactly be the case.
About “How could Grime be so positive Eddie alerted to the hidden toy when Grime himself went to the far cupboard first seeking the toy?”, Martin Grime was the subject matter expert, so it’s up to him to know why and about what he felt positive about.
About “we can't see Eddie in action after the toy was removed from the cupboard”, one can only blame the cameraman.
About “However, if Grime was so sure the alerts were to the toy, what was the need for further screening of clothing, located in the same room as CC, to be undertaken at an unrelated facility”, again only Martin Grime can answer that and the fact the video does not show it, doesn’t mean in any way there weren’t obvious reasons.
Irrelevant of the particular reasons were – only Martin Grime knows – fact is that he decided there was the need for further screening of clothing and, very important is that he decided that the screening was to be taken in an unrelated facility, which was an open space.
Why the unrelated open space facilities? Because Eddie does not locate, alerts to an area.
For Eddie to confirm that he’s alerting to an object, that object must be brought to an open space, whereby the area alerted to can only be the object. What distances have to be respected, only an expert handler knows.
And you bring up a very interesting point, which we have already brought up about Cuddle-cat and cupboard, and that is the mythical secondary contamination that you and NotTextusa’s gang like to propagate as being really, really easy to happen.
In the images we see pieces of clothing laid out. We see Eddie alert to some of them.
Question is, if secondary contamination was as easy as you & NotTextusa’s gang say it is, then the floor beneath that piece of clothing would have been contaminated. The dog should alert to it, once the item was removed or relocated.
And the handler, if contamination was as easy as you & NotTextusa’s gang say it is, knowing about this fact would have to stop the screening, pick up all the other objects still to be screened and move them to a new site he knew was not contamination-free.
For each alert, a new location for the screening to be continued.
Did that happen? No. Secondary contamination does happen but cadaver scent, DNA and blood are not microscopic Indiana Joneses.
You said..."For Eddie to confirm that he’s alerting to an object, that object must be brought to an open space, whereby the area alerted to can only be the object. What distances have to be respected, only an expert handler knows."......yet CC was placed in a cupboard 1m+ from the place of Eddie's second alert.
Delete"Furthermore, you also said..Because for dog A, the inside of the Scenic is the target he has located. The entire inside. As Martin Grime says “This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the driver’s door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognised this behaviour as the scent emitting from inside the vehicle through the seal of the around the door.”
Eddie doesn’t point locations. That’s Keela’s role."
Please explain to me again why Keela didn't need to be deployed in the dining room at the villa, with special attention to the interior of the cupboard & its contents.
Grime & Harrison also failed to ensure each item sent to the gym for further screening was individually sealed in an evidence bag to prevent any cross contamination. Each object should have been screened on both sides (top & underside) by the blood dog - that didn't happen either, contrary to ACPO guidelines. Both dogs, despite their training, also picked up potential evidence with their mouths after running over it.....
Frog,
DeleteApologies for this late reply and apologies for not replying right at the moment but your comment deserves a detailed reply which we hope we can give tomorrow.
Unlike some who use "I'm busy" to run away from their responsibilities when they aren't, we are rather busy at the moment (our most faithful readers will know that we are on in the Summer Break period).
We will reply to you as soon as we can. As said, hopefully tomorrow.
Frog,
DeleteThe explanation is extremely simple and succinct: Eddie did not alert to where you say he alerted.
The locations/objects to which Eddie alerted are in Martin Grime’s reports and only those count. You inventing a thousand times other 1,000 objects and other 3,000 locations, won’t change that.
Again we repeat that only Martin Grime can say on what technical basis he assessed the alerts that he put down on his reports – and only those count – but from what we see, it seems to us that Eddie alerted to the Cuddle-cat in the cupboard and once removed from there Eddie ignored the cupboard.
When Eddie alerts to Cuddle-cat in the living-room, it would be obvious to us that he’s repeating the object, not signalling a new location.
This then means that there was no need to have Keela brought in because the toy would later undergo the screening by Keela as it did.
Was the villa – as in any of its divisions – considered an alerted location by Eddie? No, it’s not referred as such in any report. No need for Keela then.
But your comments deserve further attention because you say this: “Grime & Harrison also failed to ensure each item sent to the gym for further screening was individually sealed in an evidence bag to prevent any cross contamination. Each object should have been screened on both sides (top & underside) by the blood dog - that didn't happen either, contrary to ACPO guidelines.”
Could you please quote the ACPO guidelines where the above is said? Thank you. We’re asking because you have repeatedly shown that you like to state there are laws written that are very convenient to you but that then one finds out they simply don’t exist.
We would like for you to show us on what you are basing not a suggestion but a statement.
If what you say is true, you are calling Grime &Harrison to be utter incompetent professionals as according to the files, “the items of clothing were set out individually under the directions of the English technicians.”
We don’t believe for a minute that either are in any way incompetent. In fact, we believe they are very competent and that’s why they were called in. Taking into account the highest possible profile the case had – and still has after 12 years – we are absolutely certain that they obeyed every single rule in the books there was to be obeyed and then obeyed some more.
The fact that the items were not bagged and sealed means only one thing: they weren’t needed to be, because secondary contamination, as we have said, is possible but is absolutely not common. If the book said they needed to be sealed, they would have been.
Grime was aware of the possibility of contamination because he was asked this question in his rogatory interview on May 14 2008:
“With respect to the odours on Kate’s clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had ever been in contact with a cadaver or could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odours to be transferred?
Martin Grime: “There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transfer...”
Yes, only a possibility, it’s not the norm and not even likely.
As we said in our comment at 7 Jun 2019, 16:59:00:
“And you bring up a very interesting point, which we have already brought up about Cuddle-cat and cupboard, and that is the mythical secondary contamination that you and NotTextusa’s gang like to propagate as being really, really easy to happen.
In the images we see pieces of clothing laid out. We see Eddie alert to some of them.
Question is, if secondary contamination was as easy as you & NotTextusa’s gang say it is, then the floor beneath that piece of clothing would have been contaminated. The dog should alert to it, once the item was removed or relocated.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteAnd the handler, if contamination was as easy as you & NotTextusa’s gang say it is, knowing about this fact would have to stop the screening, pick up all the other objects still to be screened and move them to a new site he knew was not contamination-free.
For each alert, a new location for the screening to be continued.
Did that happen? No. Secondary contamination does happen but cadaver scent, DNA and blood are not microscopic Indiana Joneses.”
*****
The garage used to screen the clothes was examined by “2 canine units” to check there were no odours before the clothing was laid out.
It seems to us that a large space was required to separate all the items, hence the garage. Martin Grime made sure the garage floor was not contaminated before the clothing was laid out.
And if secondary contamination was as rife as you and NotTextusa say it was, then as we said above, for each alert, a new screening location would have to have been set up. It wasn’t.
The video in the villa and laying of the clothes in the garage show how nonsensical is this said that by NotTextusa in his blog:
“Not Textusa7 June 2019 at 18:46
There is plenty of evidence she’s dead, but the question of whether she was ever in the car is another matter altogether.
Contrary to the bollocks spouted by the (censored) next door, a cadaver dog alerts to the scent of human decomposition. It doesn’t tell you how that scent got there. Hence, the dog cannot distinguish between a scent which is present because there has been a body there, and a scent which is there because items contaminated by the scent of a body have been there. Most normal human beings can understand that distinction, but not (censored) Textusa, not Amaral.
Same with all the bollocks about the blood - I don’t know why the (censored) has suddenly decided after 12 years that he knows better than Martin Grime, but basically this is just attention-seeking crap like the time he suddenly changed his mind about everything he had been saying for years, and instead decided that Kate had been whisked away, pretty much against her will, to turn tricks for some mysterious folks at a nearby villa.
(Censored)”
*****
This only is not nonsensical because it’s simply false and was said on purpose to mislead and misinform.
Two things must be clarified from what NotTextusa says above: “There is plenty of evidence she’s dead” but doesn’t say which and “instead decided that Kate had been whisked away, pretty much against her will, to turn tricks for some mysterious folks at a nearby villa” shows the liar NotTextusa is because we have never accused anyone in the case, much less Kate of prostitution. However, it must be said there is a LOT of non-sexual prostitution involved in this case but ALL of it has happened after Maddie disappeared.
By the way, about the gender-obsessed NotTextusa, we have been told from different sources that Mr Thompson is spreading that he is a woman and even puts forwards a name… We remind readers that Mr Thompson has sworn with his life never to reveal who NotTextusa was.
Frog, back to you, you are clearly trying to undermine Martin Grime’s credibility. Credit to you for at least doing it in an overt manner and not while pretending to do the opposite.
This tweet thread shows how much you pursue your objective:
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1137127535563681792
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Cerb32 @CruftMs and 32 others
Mick Swindells. a recognised UK cadaver dog expert, called Eddie's alert to CC "bull****" on the Mark Saunokonoko podcasts. I agree with Mick 100%. #mccann
11:41 PM - 7 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1137129846675595269
Whispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Cerb32 and 33 others
For research purposes, do you have a link to that podcast, please? Thank you. #mccann
11:50 PM - 7 Jun 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1137133922536566784
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @Cerb32 and 33 others
https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-dog-search-apartment-rental-car-maddie-podcast/fcda0546-b2a8-4c56-b78a-feba29e32380
12:07 AM - 8 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1137135260213399552
Whispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Cerb32 and 33 others
Thanks, I’ve seen that. Can you link to podcast which discusses Grime’s dogs and their abilities as bull....? Thanks
12:12 AM - 8 Jun 2019
*****
From the 9news article you have provided a link:
“Mick Swindells, a former English police inspector and dog handler who served in the Lancashire police force for 30 years, said corroborating evidence, such as DNA or a confession, will reinforce an alert and help it to be introduced as possible evidence in a trial.
"[Cadaver dogs] are a useful tool for any investigator, and we always say that any investigation must be multi-disciplinary," Swindells said.
Swindells said cadaver dogs can make mistakes when hunting for "the scent of death". In Maddie, Swindells said an alert that cadaver dog Eddie had made on Madeleine's favourite soft toy, Cuddle Cat, appeared unusual and was "bullshit".”
*****
In the podcast, at 33:17, the second time Swindells appears in it (first is at 23:34):
https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/eddie-and-keela
“Mark S: During my interview with Mick Swindells I asked him about the work Martin Grime did on the case, although my conversation with Mick had covered the tremendous capabilities of cadaver dogs, he did express his concern at the way Eddie, Martin Grime’s cadaver dog had alerted to some of the McCanns’ personal possessions
Mick Swindells: I know Martin, I did some work with his dogs when he was still in the police force… over this, about this bible and this teddy and everything… is bullshit. Yes, there is such a thing as the scent of death. How long it actually lasts, I’m not sure and I would very much doubt this scent of death would last weeks, months… I think it only lasts hours and a few days, under certain circumstances. Of course , the circumstances are totally different and if you got an area exposed to high-sunlight, hot temperatures, I would then scent of death would dissipate quicker than the scent of death, say, on a fabric… say, on, on, on a tile floor or something like that in a dark room, so I’m very sceptical about simply using of using scent of death, because it can’t be corroborated in, in a court, it’s got to be corroborated with additional evidence.
Mark S: Mick clearly harboured some doubts about the pink soft-toy, Cuddle-cat and the bible, but he didn’t share with me any concerns about the dog’s search inside 5A or the McCann’s rental car. Now the bible you heard Mick talking about, there’s no mention of the bible in the official police reports, however, several British newspapers did report that Eddie had supposedly alerted to Kate McCann’s bible.”
*****
Frog, you seem to be a firm believer in Mark Swindells.
Then, If, according to him, the cadaver scent lasts at best only a few weeks, then can you please say what scent of death were the McCanns involved with in the Scenic, Cuddle-cat and clothing during the month of July?
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteAnd what scent of death were the occupants (which?) of 5A also involved with that same July, again according to Swindells who you trust, as it couldn’t possibly be related to the McCanns because they abandoned the apartment on May 4?
Please note that he says that the alert to the “teddy” is “bullshit” but doesn’t say why. If it is because of the short time he says it takes for the scent to disappear, then all alerts should also be equally disregarded. So why mention only the “teddy” and the bible?
By the way, the fact that Swindells mentions the bible as an alert – which is not (it’s not in the files as such) – shows how much he has read the files, how much he cares to be precise.
We, on the other hand give this witness no credibility. If, after this that is now on record, any judge throws away any evidence that he may provide to a case in the future, we wouldn’t be surprised. In fact, we would be surprised if it was accepted.
Frog,
DeleteForgot to add that all searches were videoed but have we seen all the videos?
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_7.2.pdf
DeletePlease pay special attention to page 53, points 3 & 5.
Here's Eddie NOT alerting to CC...on more than one occasion (part of the video has been edited out) https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=103
If it's proven that Madeleine was alive when she was taken from 5A by a stranger, how do you think Grime will explain all Eddie's uncorroborated alerts - that's ALL of them, not the ones where blood not belonging to Madeleine was found?
I'll answer the rest of your points when I have more time to digest the content.
Oh please do explain how they're going to prove Maddie was alive and well plus abducted? I'm all ears as they've been gas lighting the public for 12 years now, of which now more than ever are not buying the abduction story. Over exposure and story bullshitting fatigue set in a long time ago and trust in the Government,MP's and Parliament on the whole are at an all time low. Trying to pull a fast one is not a smart move, dirt and secrets tend to find a way to the top when least expected or wanted, Gove himself has had to come clean this week to salvage his career, while it's rubbed some of the public up the wrong way, some just really don't about his drug use, only that he's an hypocritical weasel.
DeleteMr Thompson,
ReplyDeleteBy the way, was there any reason for you and your friend Sade Anslow to not have answered the question put to you by Andy Fish?
Don’t have the exact wording (Mr Fish’s account was again suspended) but we would say that we wouldn’t get it wrong if we said it was something like this: “You say the body was not in the Scenic. Are you saying GA was wrong?”
We consider a very pertinent question and one we think all would be interested in knowing what you both would answer.
https://twitter.com/Rs6Mr/status/1136705843272048640
DeleteMrAndrewRS6 @Rs6Mr
So anyway, folks. I asked some Rabbit prat a genuine Q last night. Got distracted as it got abusive, some Sade (as ever, was quick as flash) & got a ban for it!
But, GA believes that a cadaver was in the car?
I believe Goncalo on #McCann
7:46 PM - 6 Jun 2019
*****
As our readers know, Mr Fish is not exactly a fan of the blog but as we said above, we consider this to be a very pertinent question.
One that we can’t see why anyone who is solidly convinced about what they believe would not reply quickly and promptly.
Are we to believe that Martin Grime allowed a fellow police officer to put his reputation and livelihood on the line when GA stated his belief that ‘M’s body had been transported in the car?
DeleteWould he not have clarified, when he spoke to Amaral’s team, that the alert in the car could have been to blood of a living person?
My impression is that there was no doubt in the mind of the PJ that cadaver odour had been detected in the McCann’s car.
Anybody watching Grime speaking on the video as Eddie alerted to the car door would probably think the same.
We were able to recover the conversation between Andy Fish and Mr Thompson & Sade Anslow.
DeleteTo the simple, direct and straightforward question “Do you think GA got it wrong?”, this is what they thought they should have replied:
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz
Alright, Bugs. That Textusa Swinging weirdo aside, then I have a Q for you... Goncalo was adamant a corpse was transported in the car. Grime on the fence by the looks (love to know what he really thinks) & the #McCann obvs deny that. Do you think GA got it wrong? Cheers.
*****
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
More
Replying to @caterham620 @TheBunnyReturnz
Are you actually from another planet Andy? What's this, MK7? 8? I think you've just about pissed all over the possibility of anyone engaging in any kind of discussion with you. Don't you?
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620
You blew any chance of me answering any questions from you the last time you proved what an irreverent shandy-drinking gobshite you are. "Cheers"
23
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @caterham620
Here we are again, "travelling all over the place together." Great sunset innit?
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz
Hey up, Rabbit.
Yes. I think you're a prat (as does everyone else by the SOUNDS of it)
History there but so what!!
I asked you a Q. That's all!
#Sade joining in yet?
#Twins
Idiot on #McCann
21
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @SadeElishaa @caterham620
Gorgeous, pass me another glass of bubbly and one of those spiffing scones, please dear.
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @SadeElishaa @TheBunnyReturnz
Sade. Again.
Anywhere where someone asks that Rabbit a Q, then you get sent in?!
Can you remember that nonsense on MMM forum when you had to speak on his behalf to start? #Pathetic
#McCann
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620
...and yet you're the one who keeps losing accounts, is banned from every discussion group they ever joined, and phones old men making threats.
I've plenty of support thanks, yella.
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @SadeElishaa
You're about as funny as #Bennett
So, anyway. Back to the original Q... Was Goncalo wrong?
Thanks #McCann
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620
[media cannot be played]
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz
Been banned from a few accounts (as all knows on twitter)
I got banned from the MMM forum when 'you turned up' & all that deciteful crap came with it!
#Weirdo
Anyway sod off you loon!
As bad as Textusa on #McCann
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620 @SadeElishaa
I think you got my answer. Don't you have pensioners to be threatening, Yella?
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620
You got banned because you get drunk, start threatening people down the phone, sober up the next day stinking of regret and cowardice, then do the same again.
But if blaming others makes you feel better, you do that, sweetie.
*****
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @caterham620 @TheBunnyReturnz
Allow me to let you in on a little secret Andy. Don't tell the FBI ok?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8U6J9zUYAImUb6.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8U6KiIUIAAFmNt.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8U6LFiUwAAwzGh.jpg
*****
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @caterham620
One bubbly Stella coming right up 😃
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @SadeElishaa
No answer. Was asking about the Q on the dogs?!
That's all.
Cheers.
#McCann
#Tosser
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz
#Idiot
(Cont)
(Cont)
Delete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @caterham620 @TheBunnyReturnz
Twins 😂
This is a bit like Textusa's deduction that anyone who doesn't agree with him, is the same person.
Are you sure YOU aren't textusa Andy? You do turn up every time Textusa is mentioned...case closed.
*****
AndyCaterham620R @caterham620
Replying to @SadeElishaa @TheBunnyReturnz
Shut up, Sade!
You know that is bollox! I couldn't give a toss about you, that Rabbit loon & some weirdo known as Textusa... All Clowns on #McCann
I just want to see truth & justice & not some poxy crap!
Cheers
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620 @SadeElishaa
...and yet here you are, asking me questions. You're too easy to wind up, Yella.
*****
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @caterham620 @TheBunnyReturnz
You couldn't give a toss yet you come blundering down the street hanging out of your arse practically every week, looking for a fight.
Looking at the state of your tweets, the real life version would be even more hilarious.
Come looking for justice sober.
*****
00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @caterham620
Thanks...and you're a tosser. Such fine etiquette 😂
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620 @SadeElishaa
Jealousy will get you nowhere, Yella.
Can you please point people to anything useful you've ever brought to the McCann debate?
NB: Links to The Sun, profanities, cowardice and drunken rants do not count.
#BigBaby
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620 @SadeElishaa
Awww, poor Andy.
[GIF with a crying baby]
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @SadeElishaa
[GIF with a glass Stella Artois beer appearing and with the following words: “UMA GELADA DESSAS… TODO O DIA!”]
*****
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @caterham620 @SadeElishaa
What's up, doc.
[GIF with Bugs Bunny with the following words: “SORRY, DID I ROLL MY EYES OUT LOUD?”]
*****
And the question “Do you think GA got it wrong?”, which we said and maintain that we consider to be very pertinent, remains, to this day, unanswered by Mr Thompson and Sade Anslow.
Well done Textusa Sisters. Eddie, Keela, blood, cadaver - all the truth and facts are here from the three sisters - always on point. Great work. ��
ReplyDeleteMark Harrison describes the training and alerts of cadaver dog and lists blood in the way we interpret as meaning cadaver blood as one of bodily fluids.
ReplyDeleteHe makes no mention of needing a blood dog in order to confirm or refute Eddie’s alerts. This does not mean that Keela isn’t needed to refute the presence of blood in the locations alerted by Eddie.
This refuting in no way means that the EVRD alert is not about cadaver scent but simply the quickest way to determine if in that location there is or not blood. Cadaver blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
“This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases. Should the investigators wish to discuss and develop the issues raised
Page 2230 :
in this initial assessment I would be happy to do so. Should further advisory ?in country? support be required of the National Search Advisor following this initial assessment phase formal approval must be sought from the NPIA.
Page 2231 :
APPENDIX VICTIM RECOVERY DOGS & GPR
This section describes the training and abilities of victim recovery dogs (VRD), the enhanced victim recovery dog (EVRD) and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).
VICTIM RECOVERY DOGS
Search Asset Profile
Victim recovery dogs (VRDs) are also known as body or cadaver dogs. They are used in many countries to assist the police in locating concealed human remains. In the UK, police dogs are used that are trained and licensed to a national standard.
Pig carcasses are used to train the dogs in the UK as it is not legal to use human cadavers. This is an established training method and enables the dogs to successfully detect human remains in operational case work.
Enhanced training to produce a EVRD.
The training of a VRD provides an alert response using Ivan Pavlov's theory of producing a conditioned reflex, in this case barking, to the presence of detected decomposing human/pig flesh, bone, body fluid and blood. The dog will bark, whether or not it is able to get to the source of the scent. The benefit of this reflex is that the dog will respond whenever the target scent is present.
This enables the dog to be used in an investigative role, assisting experts in other fields, such as, geophysics.
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee.
The scent detection threshold of the dog is greatly enhanced. In operational deployment and in training, the dog is successful in detecting human remains, body fluids and blood, to cellular levels that can be recovered by low copy
analysis at forensic laboratories.
The proven capability of the EVRD is to :
Search to locate very small samples of human remains, body fluids and blood in any environment or terrain.
Identify sub-surface depositions to a depth of approximately one metre below the surface of the ground, depending on the scent permeability of the ground.
This depth is increased substantially when the ground is 'vented' prior to deployment.
Page 2232
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteLocate and give an alert to cross contamination by a cadaver. This is particularly valuable when the dog is used to assist in searches where the discovery of a body has prompted the investigation. The dog may locate secondary deposition sites and any areas of contamination, e.g., items of vehicles used to transport the body.
The generation, storage and migration of natural gases and body scent.
Gases from decomposing human remains may be dissolved in groundwater depending on the pressure, temperature or concentration of other gases or minerals in water. Dissolved gases may be advected by groundwater, and only when the pressure is reduced and the solubility limit of the gas in groundwater exceeded, do they come out of solution and form a separate gaseous phase.
'Scent', (cocktail mixtures of gases), from organic decaying remains can move through bedrock by diffusion, which is relatively slow, but if the bedrock is fractured, (eg, by bedding planes, joints and faults), the diffusion rate is increased. Gas and scent from organic decaying remains also migrate through rocks via intergranular permeability or, more particularly, along discontinuities. The hydrostatic head imposed by groundwater flows may also influence gas/organic scent emissions.
Determination of the migration pathway of gas/body scent depends on the geological, geomorphological and hydrogeological conditions and an understanding of the victim deposition site. Factors such as the surface and
groundwater flow paths, drainage, topography, runoff, precipitation rates, permeability of the soil and bedrock and hydrogeological domains, location of seeps and springs need to be determined if gases/human remains migration
pathways are to be determined.
The age of the source does not affect the process of scent movement but it will effect the concentration, as will the rate of decomposition. Body scent may be transported by 'leachate plumes' to emerge at the ground surface.
Page 2233
Figure 61 : Schematic illustration to show the influence of groundwater flows and the migration of body scent, which may be carried away from the grave site, as a lecahate plume, to emerge on the flanks.
(Note (by me) : Diagram and explanatory indicators shown here but I cannot capture it as a screenshot)”
Cavader dogs, also know as human remains detection dogs, they have been trained to smell death specifically, the dogs are trained to smell decomposition, which means they can locate body parts,tissue,blood and bone. While bodies may have been moved the dogs will still alert to where it will have been. Training can take from 18 months up to 2 years and only the cream of the crop make cavader dogs. The human body decomposes in five stages and contains over 400 compounds as it does and cavader dogs learn and recognise each one. Sometimes the scent can be overwhelming for the dog to point it will run around, this is normally will step in get the dog to focus so it can find exactly where the scent is coming from. Most will not understand how truly amazing and clever these dogs are, those who do start singing their praises then introduce possibilities of them being wrong. They cavader scent found has always been focused on Kate's top and trousers along with Sean's clothing, but it's never mentioned about Gerry's t'shirt, funny old world that for some with selected cavader scent.
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/McCannCaseTweet/status/1137027941370433537
ReplyDeleteKeela alerted to blood after Eddie had alerted behind the sofa. Does this mean the alert was only to blood, according to the gang?
Not for McFadden, it seems.
McFadden on a lengthy Twitter shadow ban, probably for buying 2.44K new followers in March. :)
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1138081995228155904
ReplyDelete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16
I know you've already read it, but for anyone else who may be interested.. 😊
#McCann
(censored, we don’t promote filth)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8tHgbLX4AI-J1W.jpg
2:54 PM - 10 Jun 2019
[Picture attached is a screengrab from NotTextusa’s blog:
“If I cut your leg off and tossed it on a tip, where it is alerted to by a Cadaver dog, the dog doesn't know that you are currently bed -blocking, and not as dead as your deceased limb. Exactly the same with blood, you fucking moron. How is this difficult to understand?”]
*****
This is very pertinent because it shows clearly how rats don’t read, they just follow the Pied Piper wherever he leads them.
If one has a leg amputated, then that disaggregated member decomposes. After one hour and a half, it develops cadaver compound.
Very simply, the blood that may ooze out of it after that time is cadaver blood, blood contaminated with cadaver compound. Eddie would react to it. Keela would as well.
If next to this decomposing limb sat the person who lost the leg and was able to survive that loss, whatever blood that living person would lose, would be live blood. Eddie would not react to it. Keela would.
Same person, different blood. One contaminated with the decomposition of the disaggregated limb, the other with no such contamination.
And NotTextusa has even given it away (our caps): “currently bed -blocking, and NOT AS DEAD as your DECEASED limb”
Why don’t they just read?
It really is that simple. The lickspittles faux science babble is fooling nobody.
ReplyDeleteComment received from NotTextusa – the blogger who swore never to comment here again – which we have censored:
ReplyDeleteNot Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVRD dog - Part 2":
Several things to point out
1. There is no such thing as "cadaver compound". You invented the term.
2. Blood does not, therefore, become 'contaminated' with this mythical compound.
3. Blood, like all other organic materials, will begin to decompose once it is removed from it's owner. Its why we keep it in a fridge, prior to transfusion, and no just hanging about on a shelf.
4. Contrary to your lies, secondary contamination - ie, the contamination of the environment adjacent to the corpse - is not only common, it is pretty much inevitable, as proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by the carpet squares study, which it would seem you still haven't read. There was never any contact between the cadavers and the carpet tiles, so ALL the contamination was secondary and due to airborne products of decomposition.
5. Why do you do this? (Censored, twaddle)
(Censored, idiotic presumption followed by a laughable threat)
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 10 Jun 2019, 17:26:00
*****
NotTextusa sounds defeated.
We will be replying to each one of the points above, in our rhythm.
NotTextusa, one question for you: are you the woman Mr Thompson says you are? Just asking for one simple reason. If you are, then he has been doxxing you privately which we would say would be betraying your trust and be doing something that only the most vile, shameless, disgusting, valueless, contemptible, disgraceful, despicable and morally corrupt people would do or you aren’t and all those to whom he said you were that woman now know what kind of a friend they have in Mr Thompson when he confides in them with such a lie, after all he has recognised publicly that he has met you in person.
Comment in reply to this from NotTextusa in his blog:
Delete“Not Textusa11 June 2019 at 19:06
(…)
As regards your other nonsense, I do not discuss personal matters online.”
*****
This “other nonsense” is specifically about this:
“NotTextusa, one question for you: are you the woman Mr Thompson says you are? Just asking for one simple reason. If you are, then he has been doxxing you privately which we would say would be betraying your trust and be doing something that only the most vile, shameless, disgusting, valueless, contemptible, disgraceful, despicable and morally corrupt people would do or you aren’t and all those to whom he said you were that woman now know what kind of a friend they have in Mr Thompson when he confides in them with such a lie, after all he has recognised publicly that he has met you in person.”
To this, after having done all he (or is it a she?) could to, allegedly, doxx a member of the blog, he (or is it a she?) doesn’t “discuss personal matters online”.
If it’s from the Textusa blog, alleged gender-faking deserves a firing-squad, nothing less will do. However, when it comes to the Admin of Justice for Madeleine FB group gender-faking, then it’s no one’s business.
If it’s from the Textusa blog, alleged personal matters are to be discussed openly online. When it comes to NotTextusa, they are not to be discussed.
Fascinating.
“Or is it a she?”
DeleteAre you serious? You’re now wondering if NT/Walker/Wright is NOT who YOU have long insisted he is? My oh my, how are you going to paint yourself out of that corner?
Anonymous 12 Jun 2019, 06:22:00,
Delete1. Please quote the blog where we have said, or insisted that NT is Michael Wright. Thank you.
2. Let’s pamper you, let’s pretend that it has been our belief for all these that NT is a man. And let’s also pretend that Mr Thompson’s private doxxing to his personal friends that NT is woman is true. To be clear, it would be the situation of us having believed NT was a man, we now realising that NT was a woman after all. To that we would only have to say: so what? Would we throw our toys out the pram? No, why would we? Just because NT was a woman instead of a man? Adults don’t throw toys out of prams. Would we throw a raging, poor, infantile tantrum because of it? No, why would we? Would we treat such “a revelation” as if the biggest secret the Milky Way has ever held had been uncovered? No, why would we? Is it in the interest anyone? No, only to the gender-obsessed and we don’t belong to that group of hypocrites.
3. Who we believe NT to be, the blog will continue to keep private. The fact that Mr Thompson is spreading around that NT is a woman, won’t obviously change our opinions an iota. In fact, we believe that anyone who bases their beliefs on this and on whatever is related to the Maddie case on what Mr Thompson says is an idiot. We do, however, respect people’s choice to be idiots. What we don’t accept is people pretending to be idiots when they aren’t.
4. Do find us a can of paint, do find us a corner and we will paint you a corner if it pleases you.
4. We are finding very interesting how this is hitting a nerve. Certainly it wasn’t because of whatever NT’s gender may be because, as we said, it is irrelevant and it is something you will never confront because you are dead scared of him (we will continue to treat NotTextusa as male, that’s how much we care about being right or wrong about his gender). The nerve-hitting can only be because you fall into that category of people who Mr Thompson is supposed to trust totally and you are now questioning if he has lied to you.
Why do you tell so many lies..? Is it a disease.. ?
ReplyDeleteJules,
DeleteWhen are you going to show us all the BRT pics you lied about?
It’s been 143 days since Jan 19, the day you said you were going to own the blog with them and we're still waiting. Not that we’re counting, mind you.
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1138420913035194372
ReplyDelete⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @RichardSpicks
Actually, the vast majority called them "cadaver dogs" plural. All I did was to try and show the facts as simply as possible. For "confusion" and "muddying waters", see textusa. His latest stunt being to add words to Martin Grime's quotes. How about a graphic showing that?
1:21 PM - 11 Jun 2019
*****
What majority?
No one called Keela a cadaver dog and no one ever called Eddie a blood dog.
After your blunder, it’s amazing how they still allow you to tweet. Your side is really becoming low on manpower, isn’t it?
And you blunder was so big that you keep returning to your initial tweet trying without any success to justify what has no excuse.
In one of his justifications, Mr Thompson, attempting to “prove” there was no novelty about calling Eddie a blood, to “show” how everyone used to call Eddie a blood dog, does what we call his cloverleaf stunt (*):
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturnz/status/1137706836352753664
⚡Bugsy ⚡ @TheBunnyReturnz
Replying to @EmmaJJW @RichardSpicks
⚡Bugsy ⚡Retweeted Win
Strange that Richard feels the need to lie about this being news. It isn't:
3 years ago:
(censored, as it’s a link to his blog and we don’t promote filth here)
7 years ago:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/221371213388316673 …
7 years ago:
https://twitter.com/Syn0nymph/status/251365801767088129 …
7 years ago:
https://twitter.com/winnower1/status/187666665222324224 …
11 years ago:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm …
⚡Bugsy ⚡added,
https://twitter.com/winnower1/status/187666665222324224
2:03 PM - 9 Jun 2019
[The tweet added tweet by Mr Thompson:
“https://twitter.com/winnower1/status/187666665222324224
Win @winnower1
Replying to @SafariSara
@SafariSara @Jillslaw @JBLittlemore Explained before: Eddie (cadaver & blood). Keela (blood only) is used to confirm non-cadaver hits.
11:23 PM - 4 Apr 2012”]
*****
Just from the above. Out of millions, literally millions of words written on the Maddie case over 12 years, Mr Thompson is only able to come up with 3 tweets (1 from JBLittlemore, 1 from Synonymph, and 1 from Winnower), one blog post from himself and a page from the PJ Files.
In none of the list above it is debated the presence or not of Maddie’s body in the Scenic because of the fact that Dog is a blood dog (we will come back to this).
We would like to see a post, tweet, forum comment made by an anti, prior to Mr Thompson’s humongous blunder (dated May 11 this year) stating that the fact Eddie alerts to blood would represent there was no evidence of Maddie’s body in the Scenic, as now Mr Thompson says to recover from his disastrous tweet.
About whether Eddie is or not a blood dog, let’s be very clear about it: EDDIE IS A BLOOD DOG WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CADAVER SCENT ALERTING.
It is not incorrect to say that Eddie is a blood dog as long as it’s made clear that he’s alerting to cadaver scent on the substance.
He’s as much of a blood dog, as he’s a human fluids dog, a teeth dog, a whatever dog as long as it’s within the context of cadaver scenting. The only scent he’s been trained to.
(*) the cloverleaf stunt is something Mr Thompson repeatedly does and that is to hold up a cloverleaf in his hand and then say he has just shown the world the Amazon forest.
Let’s start to reply to NotTextusa’s comment at 10 Jun 2019, 17:26:00 (published by us at 11 Jun 2019, 21:39:00).
ReplyDeleteWe will start with the cadaver compound that NotTextusa says we invented.
And to that effect, we bring over an article given to us by very good FB friend (thank you!):
https://www.inverse.com/article/34350-cadaver-dogs-smell-death-corpse-police
What Cadaver Dogs Really Sniff for in the Hunt for the Dead
Not even 12 feet of soil can get between these dogs and a corpse.
By Lucy Huang on July 27, 2017
In mid-July, a frustrating search for four missing men in Bucks County, Pennsylvania ended with the discovery of Dean Finocchiaro’s corpse buried in a suburban farm. The grisly unearthing led the killer, Cosmo Dinard, to confess to the murders of all four men. Though solving the crime required about 50 law enforcement investigators and the FBI, the it couldn’t have been done without the cadaver dogs. They managed to sniff out Finocchiaro’s body, even though it was buried 12 and a half feet underground.
These dogs have their work cut out for them. Unlike drug- or bomb-sniffing dogs that just need to identify a few specific scents, cadaver dogs must learn to identify hundreds.
Training requires a lot of exposure to a lot of putrid odors, but acquiring isolated versions of those odors isn’t easy. That’s why there’s a macabre realm of science research focusing on identifying the smells that leach out of the dead — and isolating them for dogs (and their humans) to identify.
When cadaver pups first start out, they practice not with real corpses but with synthetic cadaver scents. These are a real thing: the chemical giant Sigma-Aldrich makes three different corpse scents for canine training, including “recently dead,” “decomposed,” and “drowned victim.” But when it comes to the scent of dead bodies, nothing beats the real, multifarious stench.
Human bodies decompose in five basic stages, and each of those stages produces dozens of different odors. In an attempt to classify them, researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Tennessee teamed up with the FBI to build a “decompositional odor analysis database.” In a 2004 article in the Journal of Forensic Science, they explained their process: First, they buried four bodies in graves between 1.5 and 3.5 feet deep and, over the course of the next year and a half, used traps to capture the air that emanated from the rotting bodies through the ground. After analyzing 374 samples from the graves, they found out just how many volatile chemicals the human body makes when it decomposes: a whopping 424.
Many of these scents are likely identifiable only by trained dogs, but a few will stick out even to the common human nose: cadaverine, putrescine, skatole, and indole. As Inverse has explained in the past, these compounds smell particularly rank:
Cadaverine, the smell of which is officially classified as “unpleasant,” is responsible for the foul smell of rotting flesh and is also found in urine and semen. Putrescine, which smells fairly similar to cadaverine, is also what makes bad breath bad. Skatole — which is also found in coal tar — and indole are major components of feces. Strangely enough, skatole and indole are also used in low concentrations to develop flowery scents for perfumes.
Complicating the smell of death is the fact that the environment in which a corpse decays affects what odors are produced. In 2016, researchers from the University of Leicester reported that soft tissue that decomposes in the absence of oxygen breaks down differently than soft tissue in the presence of oxygen; in other words, corpses in the ground and above ground rot differently. Studying gas samples taken from pig hearts, the researchers found that decomposition in oxygen-free settings produces a lot more of indole, while the presence of oxygen tends to lead to high levels of acetone.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteOf course, when it comes to training cadaver dogs, nothing beats the real, gruesome thing. Trainers can bring dogs to outdoor forensic decomposition laboratories, like Western Carolina University or the Penn Vet Working Dog Center to practice finding actual dead bodies. As with all dog training, sniffing out cadavers comes down to manipulating the dogs’ “response and reward systems” through positive reinforcement.
Despite the fact that a dog’s sense of smell is 100 to 1,000 times more sensitive than a humans, these dogs still need to put in a lot of practice — the training process usually spans from 18 months to two years. But all that time and dogged sniffing pays off: When it comes to finding a corpse buried deep underground — even if it’s “hundreds of years old,” according to cadaver dog expert Cat Warren — these death-sniffing pups are still more effective than any machine.
*****
NotTextusa says there is no cadaver compound. That it is just something we invented. He says that it’s gas, just gas. The body releases the gas, just the gas, and once taken away the only residue, the only physical evidence that may remain in the whereabouts of where the body was will be what would be the one absorbed by the different materials that happened to be nearby the path this wafting gas took while being pushed randomly from there to wherever. Using an expression NotTextusa likes to use, we kid you not.
Now let’s read just this paragraph from this article: “First, they buried four bodies in graves between 1.5 and 3.5 feet deep and, over the course of the next year and a half, used traps to capture the air that emanated from the rotting bodies through the ground. After analyzing 374 samples from the graves, they found out just how many volatile chemicals the human body makes when it decomposes: a whopping 424.”
If it was just gas, from where does come the pressure to push this gas 1.5 to 3.5 feet of soil? Wouldn’t the soil have to swell up from this pressure?
Or does this gas dig tiny little tunnels upwards through the ground?
Or is the explanation that the body decomposes physically into what we have called cadaver compound which is highly volatile (thus the stench of cadaver) and that is what seeps into the ground, which is absorbed by it by osmosis and then and the nearer it is to the surface, the more VOCs it releases into the air?
At least Ismail the Rat agrees with us:
“The dog is a cadaver detection EVRD. It doesn’t alert to nothing. It alerts to presence of cadaver residue. Not something blown in the wind, but actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces.”
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129331479786377216
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1129332715029975042
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1138566670535077888
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore and 2 others
So the key fob had blood from a dead person on it, as per Tex's beliefs? Does dried blood from the dead smell stronger thean dried blood from the living? I'd really like to know how Grime decided the key fob was the source of Eddie's alert without putting that dog inside the car?
11:00 PM - 11 Jun 2019
******
Please quote us where we have said that the key fob had blood from a dead person? What we have said up to now is that IF it’s Gerry’s blood on it, then that only explains Keela’s alert but doesn’t explain Eddie’s alert.
It’s perfectly possible for the key fob to have Gerry’s blood (live blood) and have cadaver residue on it.
“Does dried blood from the dead smell stronger thean dried blood from the living?”
It has a different more pungent smell, not because of the blood but of the cadaver compound that contaminates it.
We will reply as soon as we can to your ACPO comment – because you once again have helped prove our point – in due time. As said, fortunately we are quite busy with more important priorities.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1138591023821725696
DeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore and 2 others
Sorry for keeping you up...just been out on Snail Patrol.
Still on the car alerts, yes. To conclude, the key fob was really a cunningly disguised` dead human body part & all DNA in the boot was from living people. I've got it now, unless otherwise corrected with proven facts.
12:37 AM - 12 Jun 2019
*****
Frog,
You wish.
For clarification, we did not say it was Gerry’s blood, we said IF it was Gerry’s blood. If it was Gerry’s blood, Keela’s alert is explained. That’s all we said.
Can readers now start to see how really huge was Mr Thompson’s blunder? It’s all in the Frog’s tweet above.
From "FB Anon 2":
ReplyDelete"I’ve sat at a round table to seat 10-12 people and that one in the photo is no way big enough. It would never fit in that spot they say, also why would a restaurant that small have table that big that cannot be broken up into sections and properly utilised. Restaurant work on bums on seats to ratio, not on babysitting ahem duties."
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1139094044594905088
Delete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Whilst you're all contacting G.A, any chance one of you could ask him to confirm that there was a #BRT in situ in the Tapas...?
#McCann
9:55 AM - 13 Jun 2019
*****
The truth always outs, sometimes from the horse’s mouth.
Isn’t Jules supposed to have pics that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of the BRT? If so, why ask Gonçalo Amaral?
A liar proving that she’s nothing but a liar. And one who doesn’t mind making a fool of herself repeatedly.
145 days Jules, 145 days…
You've seen a pic of a BRT in the Tapas.. Then you waffled on about a truck bringing it in on the 4th whilst the whole of PDL was hiding indoors.. Get over it.. WUM
DeleteExactly, to the minute, 9 hours before the comment above:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1139123241321226240
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
I knew that would get you all in a tizzy Mario.. 😂😂😂
Always better from the horses mouth babe.. :)
#McCann
11:51 AM - 13 Jun 2019
*****
Can someone teach this woman to read? In terms of self-awareness, she’s completely illiterate.
And Jules, we’re still waiting for what YOU promised on Jan 19.
NotTextusa in his comment at 10 Jun 2019, 17:26:00 (published by us at 11 Jun 2019, 21:39:00), says this:
ReplyDelete“ie, the contamination of the environment adjacent to the corpse - is not only common, it is pretty much inevitable, as proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by the carpet squares study, which it would seem you still haven't read.”
“Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt”. That’s what he says and we’re not sure if he’s trying to convince people or if he’s trying to convince himself by saying the words he wants to hear and so mitigate the absolute failure in accomplishing the mission he was tasked with. We would say the last.
This is what the carpet square study says (our caps):
“Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI < 3 h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min WITHOUT ANY DIRECT CONTACT BETWEEN THE CARPET AND THE CORPSE. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination)”
Like they are now clinging for dear life to whatever for the use of the word “blood” has had in relation to Eddie, the EVRD dog – and ONLY, repeat ONLY, an EVRD dog – NotTextusa clings to the words “without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse” as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt of “contamination of the environment adjacent to the corpse”.
NotTextusa is only doing with these words what is currently being done by him and his gang on the blood v Eddie debate, which is them taking the word blood out of the context it was used, ignoring both the circumstances in which it was said as well as the purpose with which it was mentioned.
Please note that he doesn’t use the word airborne contamination on which he then later bases all his theory to justify the cadaver scent alerts: wafting molecules.
Let us just ask our readers one question: when one picks up an object with a glove is there direct contact between the hand and the object? No.
Yet it is the force of the hand that picks up the object, so it would be absolutely correct to say that it was done “without any direct contact between the hand and the object”.
If when one was doing the above when one wanted to test if a certain substance seeped through the said pair of gloves when picking up the said object, one would contaminate one’s hand with said substance, one would put on said gloves and one would pick-up said object and then register if the object was contaminated or not with the substance.
Then one would say “without any direct contact between the hand and the object, the object was/wasn’t contaminated with substance” and be absolutely correct.
Nothing to do with airborne contamination. Only an idiot would bring airborne contamination into this. Or someone wanting to make idiots of others by insulting their intelligence.
And this is what happened in the carpet square study:
“They designed an experiment to answer the question of the Hamburg police. Two men who had died only two hours before were wrapped in cotton blankets. blankets. Carpet squares were placed under their backs, touching the blankets but not the bodies. The squares were left under the men for either two minutes or ten minutes, then removed and placed in sealed containers.
http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2009/06/dogs-detect-scent-of-cadavers-up-to-two.html
We would say the words “under their backs” exclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no airborne contamination, nor was it about any airborne contamination whatsoever.
And the words “wrapped in cotton blankets” make absolutely clear what was meant with “without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse”.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteWe explained in our post “Cadaver compound”:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/06/cadaver-compound.html
“Unfortunately for Insane, when one says “without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse” (carpet square experiment) one is NOT saying the “transmission of cadaver odour was airborne” (his words). It means only that there was no direct contact between contaminated surface and the body who contaminated it.”
We even explained it with an image:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z9AiuWThDdk/VW8pr6IsJcI/AAAAAAAAL8Y/rGdRu7-9p8s/s400/contamination%2B1.jpg
What more could we have done? Nothing.
NotTextusa is just being true to the Lick-spittle gang motto: “ignore the truth, if it can’t be ignored then smash it, stump it, kick it, ridicule it but never recognise it as such”.
The remit of carpet square 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.”
The need for this experiment came about to determine the reliability of an EVRD dog in a case of an alleged body on a mattress in a yacht.
It was then important to establish no direct contact between carpet squares and body to replicate the fact that there would have been clothes and/or sheets between body and the mattress.
NotTextusa is not being silly, he’s just trying to mislead. Smashing, stumping, kicking, ridiculing the truth.
The experiment was about permeability. A blanket was placed between cadaver and carpet squares and carpet became contaminated by material, which was permeable.
The experiment was to show that cadaver dogs could detect odours on surfaces, carpet being very permeable itself, even when a clothed body may have been left on any surface but didn’t directly make contact with that surface. Showing how accurate dogs were.
The cadaver compound produced by the cadaver permeated the materials, both blanket and carpet squares.
We do not say there isn’t secondary contamination. Grime in the PJFiles speaks of that possibility being real. And he has also said this:
"Mr Grime told the court that Eddie's nose is so sensitive that if someone touched a dead body, then touched a piece of paper before hiding it, Eddie would be able to locate the paper using his sense of smell."
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/2010/02/eddie-sniffer-dog-located-body-of.html
Secondary contamination… by touch. Not wafting molecules.
Being cadaver compound an oily substance, one just has to imagine how one would dirty things up with grease. But not by putting one’s hand in a barrel but rather when one picks up a greasy object. One’s hand becomes dirty with grease so the next object one touches one will be contaminated by one’s hand.
This is obvious and simple to understand. But unlike people like NotTextusa and the Frog try to make believe happens, this is where the contamination stops having alleged MacGyver properties.
The amount of grease picked up by one’s hand is minimal when in comparison with the film on the initial object and the amount of grease left by one’s hand on the second object is minimal when compared with the one in the hand. It’s a negative geometrical progression.
In plain terms, to have a tertiary contamination, the amount of initial physical contaminant has to be significant.
For example, would the paper Martin Grime mentions contaminate the desk? No. Grime by saying “is so sensitive” is showing how amazing it is for the dog to alert to the secondary PHYSICAL contamination.
By the way when Grime says “if someone touched a dead body, then touched a piece of paper” isn’t he confirming the existence of the cadaver compound, that substance the Rat refers to as “not something blown in the wind, but actual particles from oily secretion bonded to surfaces”?
It seems that beyond a shadow of a doubt, he does.
Frog (at 11 Jun 2019, 00:19:00),
ReplyDeleteOur apologies for the late reply but we felt that we needed to clarify the idiocy put forward by NTx saying that the carpet square experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how easy would be for there to be successive contaminations of cadaver compound (see our comment at 13 Jun 2019, 12:01:00).
Reason why we are publishing this reply here, after that comment from us.
We had to do clarify this before replying to you as your comment helps further prove our point, but needed the clarification first. Our point being that such alleged successive contamination is fictional and something that you and NTx have a wishful thinking that you are able to convince people that it’s true, knowing full well that it isn’t.
But first let us congratulate you for providing the ACPO guidelines. If we are not wrong, this was the first time you provided what we asked for to back up something you said. Thank you. Can you now convince your friend Jules to publish her BRT photos?
You do realise that the guidelines are for crime scenes that have been preserved and where each biological sample collected in them may be relevant, right?
In the case of the objects/clothes collected from the villa to be screened they donot fall into this category of crime scene.
Sealing the items collected in the villa would be a waste of time and of resources as they could have been handled by many people and in many ways between the time Maddie disappeared and when they were collected.
For example, the clothing, how many times were the clothes in question put in some laundry basket before being washed during that period of time? Certainly often.
To seal each of these items for screening would be useless, a waste of time and if done, only “for the photo” as the Portuguese say.
You do know the meaning of “guide” in guidelines, right?
It’s to provide guidance, leaving up to individual judgement and expertise which apply where and when or if they apply at all. Mandatory procedures are called either SOP (Standard of Procedures) or ROE (Rules of Engagement).
But can you see how you help prove our point by trying to call Grime incompetent, because that is what you are trying to do?
Let us explain.
Let’s consider that Grime was indeed incompetent as per your suggestion. That he should have isolated and sealed each item. Why you say he should do this? To avoid contamination between items.
But… where is said contamination EVEN with Grime being incompetent as you say he was?
See how you helped us?
If you were right, if Grime had gathered all the clothing like laundry before spreading them in the gym, then all, or at least the majority of the clothes should have been contaminated. But they weren’t, were they?
Add to the above the mixing-up of the clothes prior having been brought in from the villa. Those months they were mixed up together. Throw in the Cuddle-cat that we know was washed and we are supposing that happened together with other laundry.
Where is the contamination? There isn’t.
And that is because contamination is not anywhere near likely to happen in the way you say it is. The fact there were only 2 items of clothing alerted to by Eddie prove beyond a shadow of a doubt there was no rife contamination.
Thank you so much for your help.
According to Grime, Eddie did not alert to any item at the villa other than CC, so why were clothing & other textiles taken from the villa for secondary screening in the gym? Is it possible contamination occurred between the villa & 2nd examination in the gym?
DeleteJust because the villa was not the crime scene didn't mean standard procedures could be waived. You only need to look at the case of PJ Inspector Ana Saltao, on whose jacket traces of gunpowder residue were detected, forming part of the evidence against her in the murder trial.
"One of the strongest evidence of the accusation was a coat of Ana Saltão with traces of gunpowder. The garment was handed over to the colleagues on suspicion and was thrown to the floor of a PJ do Porto office, where it was stored before being subjected to analysis. In addition to criticizing this "inexplicable" procedure, the court finds that the coat may have been contaminated."
The chain of custody of evidence in Ana's case was broken, just as it was broken when the McCanns' personal effects were incorrectly removed from the villa for further examination. You can clearly see on video a PJ officer's hand adjusting Sean's red t-shirt seconds before Eddie alerted to it, notwithstanding other cross-contamination during packing, transport & unpacking.
Frog,
DeleteWhat "other cross-contamination during packing, transport & unpacking" are you speaking about? The 2 items of clothing and Cuddle-cat, is that it?
Can you please detail them? Thank you.
First of all it's necessary to determine why it was decided items not alerted to at the villa needed a second examination by Eddie. If the dog missed the scent the first time round, what value does that place on other non-alerts in non-McCann related places?
DeleteFrog,
DeleteFrom you:
“Grime & Harrison also failed to ensure each item sent to the gym for further screening was individually sealed in an evidence bag to prevent any cross contamination. Each object should have been screened on both sides (top & underside) by the blood dog - that didn't happen either, contrary to ACPO guidelines. Both dogs, despite their training, also picked up potential evidence with their mouths after running over it.....”
(7 Jun 2019, 22:54:00)
“http://library.college.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_7.2.pdf
Please pay special attention to page 53, points 3 & 5.”
(11 Jun 2019, 00:19:00)
“…notwithstanding other cross-contamination during packing, transport & unpacking.”
(13 Jun 2019, 19:55:00)
Please stop trying to move the goalpost. You know that doesn’t work here.
We are determining the effects of contamination to unsealed individual items that were brought to the gym for screening.
That is what we are determining as per your request. And that is the reason why we asked the question you have yet to answer at 13 Jun 2019, 23:12:00:
“What "other cross-contamination during packing, transport & unpacking" are you speaking of? The 2 items of clothing and Cuddle-cat, is that it?
Can you please detail them? Thank you.”
Because it’s a FACT that the FACT that only 2 items of unsealed were alerted to by Eddie and none by Keela debunks beyond a shadow of a doubt your contamination theory to justify the alerts in the Scenic.
And it shows with absolute clarity how ridiculous is NotTextusa’s “scented drawer liners” theory because if he was right, then all items of clothing had to have been alerted to as all would have contaminated each other and only 2 items of clothing and the Cuddle cat were.
The absurd NotTextusa’s “scented drawer liners” comes from this comment in his blog:
Delete“Not Textusa31 May 2019 at 23:27
Hiya, thanks for dropping in.
I'm right with you in terms of the ability of dogs in general and certain breeds in particular, to be excellent tools in both crime detection and health intervention - I don't know if you have read about them being used to screen urine samples for evidence of markers for bladder cancer, but they are at least as sensitive as the most reliable lab testing. They have also been trained to alert people with a certain type of epilepsy, as they actually produce a specific marker chemical prior to a seizure, which the dog can smell and warn them that they are about to have one, and there are many case reports of dogs alerting their owners to solid tumours, such as breast cancer.
Plus, regardless of any nonsense put out by detractors, when subjected to a controlled environment the dogs has been shown to be extremely accurate and reliable.
So my personal opinion is that the alerts were probably genuine, and the dogs reacted to the presence of residual odours remaining at the scene, or caused by secondary contamination - ie, items carrying the target scent transported in the car, but not the body itself.
If you imagine how scented drawer liners work, the principle is almost the same. Liner is impregnated with source of odour, this in turn is transferred to garments stored in drawer, fragrance then present when car boot is opened and rose-scented cardigan has been inside. The car boot has seen no roses, and no drawer liner, but the scent has been carried by a vector - the garment.
So in my personal opinion a scenario where a body lay in the apartment long enough to produce scent markers detectable some weeks later by the dogs and in addition adsorbed onto personal belongings, clothing etc, which then acted as a vector, transferring odour into the car.
Also in my opinion Madeleine was dead that night and her remains disposed of that night and not into any temporary location or holding space. I think there is good circumstantial evidence to support this and some key behavioural indicators, but if you can bear with me I am writing a piece about that at the moment, so we could maybe return to that later?”
*****
Interesting for a person who is so demanding for facts from others to base his theories on “is good circumstantial evidence to support this and some key behavioural indicators”.
No, not interesting, it just shows a 100% class A hypocrite.
Are you going to answer my question 23.17 13th June or not? Until you can establish why non-alerted-to items in one residence needed to be moved for re-checking elsewhere, the issue of cross-contamination cannot be addressed.
DeleteAccording to NT’s explanation, it must have been K’s contaminated trousers, top or S’s red t shirt which went into the boot and floating molecules persisted after the boot was cleaned by Wright and Cameron.
DeleteThe odours permeated through the bag containing the clothes; presuming normal people pack clothes in bags before putting them in the boot. The odour then settled on the boot fabric
The floating molecules persisted after the boot was left open day and night, weeks after M died? (a witness saw the boot left open )
Eddie’s strong alert to the car door seal was noted, meaning the odour was strong, unlike the garden area.
How likely is this, compared to the probability of Eddie alerting to a physical cadaver substance that adhered after direct contact with the fabric boot lining?
Frog,
DeleteWe were arguing one topic (sealing v contamination) and you suddenly decided to veer off and brought into the discussion a totally new topic (deployment reliability of dogs) which only makes us assume that it was because you lacked answers to the first topic, which means you have conceded on it.
To be clear, we were debating the physics involved in successive contaminations of the emitting sources for both cadaver and blood scent, as well as the likelihood of them even happening and came to the conclusion that although individual items were sealed and that there was a low number of alerts, meant that successive contaminations were not easy to happen and so very unlikely.
Your veering was to try to question the competence of both the handler and deployment techniques of the dogs. You went as far as to say that one cannot be discussed without the other.
We disagree. It’s like discussing fish quotas and dairy products. Both are food related but there’s no problem in discussing them separately.
About your question, it answers itself.
Who says the dog missed the scent on the first time? What first time?
You seem to miss the obvious: the majority of the items were neither alerted in the villa nor in the gym. They were uncontaminated items, so as many times the dog was brought to them, he would not alert to any.
However, these items were brought to the dogs. That means that them having brought to the gym had nothing to do with them having been alerted to or not in the villa. Or anywhere else.
The moment the dogs alerted in 5A, the McCanns became natural and understandable suspects. Reason why the villa was screened and reason why the Scenic was also screened.
There’s a difference between the alerts in the apartment and in the villa.
As we have said, we believe that the alert at the villa was assessed to be related to an object, the Cuddle-cat. Not to locations within the villa, unlike what happened inside 5A, where 2 locations were marked as alerted: living-room behind couch and bedroom near closet.
As we have also said, Eddie alerts to locations, not objects.
To determine if objects are contaminated, there has to be space, like the one that exists in a gym.
So, the clothes were brought in the gym not because they were in the villa but because they belonged to the McCanns. They just happened to be in the villa.
Once in the gym, the screening was done to determine if objects were contaminated and not to alert to location. That’s why the items of clothing alerted to are individualised in Grime’s reports.
Probably you are going to ask, if they clothes were in the villa, why didn’t Eddie alert to them?
To answer that we refer you to para #3 – Levels of concentration of current post.
The locations where the contaminated items were (e.g. washing machine, drawers, underneath other items of clothing, etc.) blocked the emission to below the minimum required level of concentration of airborne molecules to activate the dog’s nose.
Or as we have said in the post “But there could be less than 4 jasmines present, there could be only 2 (the interval being 2-4) and Jasmine could still alert. Likewise, there could be from 1 to 3 and Jasmine could not react at all, producing the understandable and expected false negative.”
What does this mean? That for the dog to have reacted to both by the door of the Scenic and in the flowerbed, there had to be in those sites a level of concentration superior to the one emitted by Kate’s trousers, wherever they were, when Eddie was screening the villa.
"To determine if objects are contaminated, there has to be space, like the one that exists in a gym."
DeleteSo why did Grime put the key fob under the fire bucket (or bury it in the sand, depending on which translation is used) in the underground car park to see if both dogs would alert to it?
Eddie could allegedly smell cadaver odour through concrete & water....you honestly think a closed drawer or a laundry pile would have defeated him? Yet he still managed to ignore CC lying on the floor in the middle of a room, surrounded by nothing. Your argument doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
Frog,
DeleteThe scrutiny of our arguments are called Eddie, the cadaver dog and Keela the blood dog with their alerts and Martin Grime with his reports.
We were not there, Martin Grime is the person you should address your questions to. You could also ask the other UK police expert and the 3 PJ officers who were there as well.
EVRD dogs can “smell cadaver odour through concrete & water” when they are looking for bodies, meaning the source of emission of scent is way more significant than a film on an object. Again, we refer you to Martin Grime.
We and the Portuguese justice system are only interested to where and what Eddie and Keela alerted to, as reported by the certified subject matter expert chosen to come all the way from the UK to provide his professional expertise to the highest visibility criminal case that the 21st century has had.
As a side-note. For example, if the clothes were inside the washing machine when Eddie was in the villa, we find it plausible for him to not have alerted.
We see that you have dropped the nonsense you previously claimed about successive contamination.
I've not dropped any claim, Textusa. If Grime et al were as professional as you believe then the washing machine door would have been opened & Eddie directed to screen it, just as he did previously in 5A search.
DeleteAgain I ask you - what value Eddie's non-alerts at non-McCann-related locations/vehicles if the dog missed the clothing at the rental villa?
Frog,
DeleteWe don’t twist facts.
FACT #1: dogs alerted to 2 pieces of clothing in the gym.
FACT #2: the dog did not alert to any of the clothes in the villa.
Those are the facts. Incontrovertible and undeniable.
You are of the opinion that Eddie is a failure. We don’t consider that possibility. By the way you don’t as well because in your thesis of the police man handling the t-shirt – implying the planting of evidence – you and that officer are assuming the dog would react according to your conspiracy purposes, meaning that you and that officer trusted in Eddie’s capabilities.
We were not there, so we don’t know what happened. We do know however one very important factor: the McCanns were warned and had time to take pre-emptive actions. Like looking at any items that they suspected could return an alert and take them elsewhere.
One can then speculate if the clothing screened in the villa was the same as those screened later in the gym. The fact that the clothes had been screened in the villa may have given the McCanns the impression they would not be screened again, and they were.
Another fact that confirms our theory of levels of concentration is the fact that Eddie alerts at the door after having passed the boot where the blood was alerted to by Keela. One can speculate that the seal of the door leaked while the one in the boot didn’t, but the way the dog reacted to the key fob in the “bucket experiment” seems to indicate to us that object was a significant source of cadaver scent.
In fact, we think the whole “bucket experiment” was to show that. How significant a source of emission the key fob was. If it was simply to demonstrate that it was an emitting object, then Kate’s trousers and Sean’s t-shirt would have undergone the same process.
But the fact that no clothes had been alerted to in the villa, meant that the items of clothing were weak emitters of the scent.
All speculation. Only Martin Grime can confirm or deny.
But we have the MOST IMPORTANT fact: the McCanns have accepted that there were marks of cadaver in the Scenic and in the apartment.
They had an explicit window of opportunity to claim all you are claiming and they didn’t take it.
Frog,
DeleteTo answer your question objectively:
What you say to be non-alerts, we agree fully with you. As in the items were not alerted to in the villa.
If, as we have speculated, they were not in the villa then they couldn’t have been alerted to.
If, as is possible, they were in the villa, then we consider them to be acceptable false-negatives. We have given our opinion but that’s all they are. Only one person in the world can explain why: Martin Grime.
Because he is a certified dog handler and because he was in situ.
You don’t mention that clothes alerted to in gym could have been the clothes that were removed, when wet, from the washing machine.
DeleteJon Corner mentions this in the documentary.
G then brought boxes of clothes, the bible and K’s diary on 3/8 and handed then to PJ officer and U.K. officer De Freitas, this is in PJ files.
@Textusa.
DeleteSo we have a little progress here, in that you accept there could have been a false negative alert at the villa. The clothing alerted to by Eddie came from the first box examined at the gymnasium & bore a PJ label (you can briefly see a PJ officer packing a box at the villa on the video) so there is no doubt these items were at the villa during the earlier searches.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
1 - 11.20pm: Prior reconnaissance of the place by the two canine units to guarantee that the space was clear of all odours being sought. The reconnaissance was completed at 11.30pm without anything being signalled by the dogs.
2 - 11.30pm: An initial inspection by the human blood detecting dog, began with the clothing packed in the box bearing the notation: "Living room." At 11.40pm, the inspection was completed without the dog showing anything abnormal.
11.41: The canine human remains recovery dog started its inspection and "marked" various clothes. The inspection was completed at 11.52pm. The clothes were returned to their box for later use.
From 12.02am until 1.30am, (03/08/07) all the other boxes, containing clothing from the twins' bedroom, from the friends' bedroom, from the bedroom of the couple labelled 1 & 2, as well as the empty luggage, was inspected by the two dogs without conclusive results.
However, I believe that the 2 alerts at the villa were not to CC but to items on the counter & either something on the table or chair. It is a concern to me that Grime appeared to pre-determine that CC was, in fact, the source of the scent re. 2 separate alerts without first allowing Keela to check for the presence of blood in the same areas. Had nobody ever bled at the rented villa?
BTW which came first - the death in 5A hypothesis or the dog searches?
“So we have a little progress here, in that you accept there could have been a false negative alert at the villa”
DeleteSeriously? We have been speaking about false negatives and you say we are progressing by saying there may have been false negatives?
We have even asked to those who say Eddie is a cadaver AND blood dog and do state that the alerts where he does and Keela doesn’t, means cadaver scent, if they can guarantee that it wasn’t a marking by Eddie of blood and only blood and a false negative by Keela.
****
“However, I believe that the 2 alerts at the villa were not to CC but to items on the counter & either something on the table or chair.”
You do know the legal value that has, don’t you? None. It’s your opinion and according to the legal binding documentation, which are the PJ Files, Martin Grime, the certified dog handler and who was present there, has a different opinion from yours.
*****
“BTW which came first - the death in 5A hypothesis or the dog searches?”
Please ask Mark Harrison.
Sorry but we could not resist. We found this pearl and just had to share:
ReplyDeletehttp://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html
“And he [NotTextusa] 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.””
*****
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1138826421915312128
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
To all those who question whether Eddie would alert to blood from a living human:- Eddie could not have been lawfully trained on blood from a dead human in the UK. Grime speciifically said Eddie alerted to dried blood from a living human, just as Keela did. #mccann
4:12 PM - 12 Jun 2019
*****
This is just simple desperation.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
DeletePage 2231 - About Eddie’s training. He was later trained in USA.
Anonymous 13 Jun 2019, 18:29:00,
DeleteThank you!
Bringing over the quote:
"An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee."
Quote of the day:
ReplyDelete"Stupid is knowing the truth, seeing the truth but still believing the lies"
https://me.me/i/stupid-is-knowing-the-truth-seeing-the-truth-but-still-cc5d7cb3d3114443b63da5a7bdac0e05
https://twitter.com/JaxDemon2/status/1136965959632269313
ReplyDelete🄹🄰🅇 🄳🄴🄼🄾🄽 @JaxDemon2
Replying to @janamb @MichelleDewbs
Washing her daughters toy before police arrived. Dogs smelt blood in the car. Two dogs that 100% success rate. Playing Tennis day after she's gone missing. They overdosed her and buried her somewhere.
12:59 PM - 7 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/werkware/status/1137355317380100097
werkware @werkware
Replying to @JaxDemon2 @janamb @MichelleDewbs
where’s the evidence for that sherlock?
2:46 PM - 8 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JaxDemon2/status/1137462768297271297
🄹🄰🅇 🄳🄴🄼🄾🄽 @JaxDemon2
Replying to @werkware @janamb @MichelleDewbs
It's been mentioned many times. How sniffer dogs signalled 'scent of blood & corpse' in Maddie McCann apartment -
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/how-sniffer-dogs-signalled-scent-14141404
9:53 PM - 8 Jun 2019 from Leicester, England
*****
https://twitter.com/werkware/status/1137469591976841221
werkware @werkware
Replying to @JaxDemon2 @janamb @MichelleDewbs
An apartment that has been used many years by many people. Could be anybody's blood. Were these the same dogs that found evidence in Jersey too, where are those bodies
10:20 PM - 8 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JaxDemon2/status/1137646113731862530
🄹🄰🅇 🄳🄴🄼🄾🄽 @JaxDemon2
Replying to @werkware @janamb @MichelleDewbs
Fresh blood not old blood. Fresh blood in the McCanns car as well they'd hired. The dogs had a 100% success rate. Anyone who thinks they're innocent is deluded. They openly admitted to sedating the kids to sleep at times.
10:02 AM - 9 Jun 2019 from Leicester, England
*****
https://twitter.com/werkware/status/1137711535273459713
werkware @werkware
Replying to @JaxDemon2 @janamb @MichelleDewbs
Did you read the article you linked, they can smell odours up to 40 years old. They cannot differentiate between fresh and old blood.
2:22 PM - 9 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/werkware/status/1137711661190696960
werkware @werkware
Replying to @JaxDemon2 @janamb @MichelleDewbs
I suggest you read this.
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1 …
2:22 PM - 9 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/JaxDemon2/status/1137806685509226496
🄹🄰🅇 🄳🄴🄼🄾🄽 @JaxDemon2
Replying to @werkware @janamb @MichelleDewbs
You're clutching at straws with a blogpost lol. Amazing how they're trying to discredit dogs with a 100% record all while ignoring the fact the parents are to blame for the death of their child. Which they've managed to milk for years now.
8:40 PM - 9 Jun 2019 from Leicester, England
*****
https://twitter.com/werkware/status/1138751273401036800
werkware @werkware
Replying to @JaxDemon2 @janamb @MichelleDewbs
Can you supply a body and evidence of death and evidence for their guilt. Rather than crackpot theories and tabloid speculation? You didn’t address your error concerning fresh blood.
11:13 AM - 12 Jun 2019
*****
Oh, the irony…
Werkware using Mr Thompson’s blog to argue against the dogs.
No, no irony at all.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/Ntown1976Nick/status/1139462558765789184
nick Townsend @Ntown1976Nick
Replying to @CruftMs @FragrantFrog and 48 others
There was no FORENSIC corroboration of any dog-alert in the Bianca Jones case.
10:20 AM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/CruftMs/status/1139468994224803840
Ms Myrtle Willoughby Cruft @CruftMs
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick @FragrantFrog and 48 others
It doesn't matter you complete and utter BUFFOON! Witness testimony and other evidence can corroborate dog alerts, as they did in the Jones case. He was convicted of murder...on non forensic evidence including dog alerts. #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9A07dWXYAALuWP.jpg
10:45 AM - 14 Jun 2019
Picture attached says:
“Michigan Court of Appeals Holds Cadaver Dig Evidence Admissible
On November 13th, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals held in a criminal case that cadaver dog evidence is admissible
If the proponent of the evidence establishes the foundation that (1) the handler was qualified to use the dogs; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in identifying human remains; (3) circumstantial evidence corroborates the dog’s identification; and, (4) the evidence was not stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog’s competency to identify it.”
*****
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1139501820471074816
Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2
Replying to @CruftMs @Ntown1976Nick and 48 others
There’s an important point of difference between the use of Grime’s dog in the McCann case and this ruling though; Grime’s dog wasn’t ‘trained in identifying human remains’.
The problem with using pigs as training aids is you then have a dog trained to find dead pigs.
#mccann
12:56 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139562050752057345
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @MrDelorean2 @CruftMs and 48 others
Incorrect.
It’s science not voodoo.
The dog doesn’t ‘home in’ on one scent, but rather a combination. The ‘pig’ is a part of the training but not the training in entirety. The rest of the scent mix, phased or otherwise, is not always going to be something open to public
4:55 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139564537017974784
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 49 others
revelation. The process, theoretically, is simple, almost algebraic - the smell of the porcine component with the scents it is combined with will drive the dog in the direction of an alert. But the dog can also be trained to disregard individual components of the mix.
5:05 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139565238263660546
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 49 others
Blend, alert. Single element, ignore.
It’s how Grime could say, without paradox, that the cadaver dog could alert to blood... but would not. It constitutes part of the science that adds the “E” to VRD. It’s an augmentation of skills. The dog would “know” that it was detecting
5:08 PM - 14 Jun 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139565673468899328
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 49 others
blood, and be on alert, but still be trained beyond that to home in on something that may or may not be mixed with blood odours, but would be far more than blood odour alone.
You can train the dog on a mix of elements and then train them to ‘screen out’ certain elements, to
5:10 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139565824472231936
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 49 others
‘smell beyond’ them.
5:10 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1139566218136948736
Ismail A Rat @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @MrDelorean2 and 49 others
Now... the problem with holding the view that if you train the dogs with pigs you only train dogs to smell pigs is that such an assertion is ignorant... it inevitably assumes that the forensic dog trainers and those who research and progress the science, and those who contract
5:12 PM - 14 Jun 2019
*****
… and Rat the duck has stopped to quacking and has started to bark! LOL
The Rat has now started to tweak his “dog-speech” towards to where the other side wants things to head for on this subject. On this very important subject. We cannot stress any further how important this subject is.
Where has the Rat done that? Here:
“But the dog can also be trained to disregard individual components of the mix. Blend, alert. Single element, ignore.”
He has opened the door for the dog to have different TRAINED reactions to different scents.
The next step? To say that the dog can be trained for cadaver and live blood. 2 different scents. Confirming what JBLIttlemore, NotTextusa and Mr Thompson have been saying.
And then the Rat will say – or hopefully he won’t now – is that Eddie was not trained to disregard… live dried blood. So, by not disregarding it he alerts to it.
To be very clear dog is trained for a SINGLE scent. The ONLY one that he reacts to.
HE REACTS TO NO OTHER SCENT MEANING HE IGNORES ALL OTHER SCENTS.
He is trained by default to ignore ALL other scents. He doesn’t need any training to ignore any scents. He is rewarded when he reacts to the scent he was trained for, and once the Pavlovian reaction settles in, no other scent stimulates him.
Why are we publishing this?
To show the Rat that we are onto to him, paying attention to every single word he says. Making him even more self-conscious than he already is.
And to show him and readers how we know how important this is for the other side. Mr Thompson’s blunder was HUGE. So huge that we are dividing things again what we are writing into parts 3 and 4.
Part 4 will be totally dedicated to Mr Thompson’s blunder. That’s how big it was.
"The next step? To say that the dog can be trained for cadaver and live blood. 2 different scents. Confirming what JBLIttlemore, NotTextusa and Mr Thompson have been saying."
ReplyDeleteNo-one has suggested that. Martin Grime stated that Eddie alerted to cadaver and to dried blood. That is exactly what all the above have said. Why are you lying about this?
Anonymous 15 Jun 2019, 08:17:00,
DeleteOh, look, the gang is now coming in support of the Rat! What a coincidence. NOT.
Thank you for validating what we have said.
You're still allowed to comment? Fascinating.
Its been posted before I'm sure but it is well worth revisiting imo.
ReplyDelete.....................................
At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham’s protocol called for regular single- and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham’s program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime’s dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim’s death, or years after a victim’s burial.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
http://www.rumschlaglaw.com/rumschlag/2014/11/14/michigan-court-of-appeals-holds-cadaver-dog-evidence-admissible
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1139850613624193024
ReplyDeleteSheLLxx ©The Shelminator ㊙ @xxSiLverdoexx
Can someone ask textusa to keep a track of what their lackey's say BEFORE they try then to claim otherwise on tag and on the blog comments section?
Thank ye muchly!🙄🙄#mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9GP5deWwAMZyQN.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9GP6rVW4AABNAE.png
12:02 PM - 15 Jun 2019
[Pic #1 is a screengrab of this tweet:
“https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139849393635565568
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Mari Welzel Retweeted Mari Welzel
Textusa spot on !!!
"Anonymous 15 Jun 2019, 08:17:00,
Oh, look, the gang is now coming in support of the Rat! What a coincidence. NOT.
Thank you for validating what we have said.
You're still allowed to comment? Fascinating."
#mccann
Mari Welzel added,
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139847327500230656
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
:) Textusa: "Why are we publishing this? To show the Rat that we are onto to him, paying attention to every single word he says. Making him even more self-conscious than he already is.…
11:57 AM - 15 Jun 2019”]
[Pic #2 is a screengrab of this tweet:
“https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139478257651408896
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Mr Rat has #mccann and co exhausted. The duo's fans have tried everything, putting all their faith in kate&gerry said so and clear signs of gamble, squealing and panting.
11:22 AM - 14 Jun 2019”]
*****
Silverdoe,
You should try to see the world outside your own reality one of these days. The fact that you have lackeys doesn’t mean the rest of the world works in the same way your gang does.
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139852778275164165
DeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
How can anyone imagine so many two-faced http://b.st .rds appearing on one page, I didn't know there were so many in the world! Here it started with #mccann and co now a two-forked tongue mob increasing by the day! Thank you Textusa, for showing these people up.
12:10 PM - 15 Jun 2019
https://b.st/
*****
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139853622320062466
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
If you hate the lies that are circling and increasing #mccann s income you will stand up for justice.
12:14 PM - 15 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139858398021861377
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Mari Welzel Retweeted Mari Welzel
How many names do the #mccann helpers need to push their lies ?
Mari Welzel added,
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
How many names do the #mccann helpers need to push their lies ?
12:33 PM - 15 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139883216649801729
Mari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Most enjoyable ! In fact it is hilarious and when you know the triggers :)) they pop up, Textusa. I'm doing my own guesswork here because I have to refer to the blog to see the current 'situation' they find themselves in :)))) Good job.
#mccann and co
2:11 PM - 15 Jun 2019
1 - I have NO Lackeys - FRIENDS - Something you can't grasp the fact some of us on tag actually DO like AND respect each other.
Delete2 - One moment you lot are praising rat, the next you're accusing him of being.....what exactly? Your reasoning here is as nonsensical as always and you childishly dig to make yourself feel more superior.
3 - How many swingers does it take to make a conspiracy out of nothing?
Silverdoe
Silverdoe,
Deletehttps://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/81/cd/4881cd80ec0a65b9d8b62deb18cbc41b.jpg
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139893874233679872
DeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Textusa, you will be reading here, won't you. You will be first to notice the damage control :)) It is much more interesting now that you have pointed out, did you call it, the #mccann patrol, here on twitter
2:54 PM - 15 Jun 2019
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/785531/madeleine-mccann-2019-police-probe-rushed-disappearance-missing-news-parents-latest/amp
ReplyDeleteMadeleine McCann cops 'bungled investigation from the start' claims top Brit detective
A BRITISH detective who led the UK investigation to find Madeleine McCann has accused Portuguese cops of bungling the initial investigation.
By Tom Towers 10.06, 15 Jun 2019 UPDATED 15.06, 15 Jun 2019
Jim Gamble, the senior child protection officer in UK's initial Maddie investigation, said the first Portuguese officers investigating the disappearance panicked as the case gained international attention.
Speaking to Daily Star Online, Mr Gamble said officers bungled the probe when they wrongly made Maddie’s parent’s Kate and Gerry ‘people of interest’ just four months after she vanished.
He said: “By that stage time had passed and I think desperation was setting in.
“There was huge pressure on the police in a high profile case in my mind.
“I feel that they rushed to judgement because that particular judgement would suit.”
He believes the couple were only targeted by Portuguese cops because of their misunderstanding of DNA results.
In 2007, DNA swabs were lifted from the McCanns’ holiday flat and hire car.
Portugal’s police force sent the samples to be analysed the Forensic Science Service in Birmingham, but Dr John Lowe exampled they were “too complex for meaningful interpretation”.
Analysis of hair and other fibres taken from the hire car and apartment were analysed by the unit.
The DNA results came with a major ‘health warning’ from the FSS.
An email from John Lowe stated that only 15 out of a set of 19 components of Madeleine’s DNA profile had been found in the hire car.
Mr Lowe cautioned: “The individual components in Madeleine’s profile are not unique to her; it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others.
"Elements of Madeleine’s profile are also present within the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included.
“It’s important to stress that 50 per cent of Madeleine’s profile will be shared with each parent.
"It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. ... Therefore, we cannot answer the question: Is the match genuine, or is it a chance match.”
Despite this, Portuguese police still wrongly declared Kate and Gerry “arguidos” – people of interest.
Mr Gamble added: “The information I was getting from people on the ground was that the Portuguese police hadn’t thoroughly considered what was said in the first report by the Forensic Science Service (FSS), which was a big question mark.”
He continued: “Having seen the letters from the FSS, I have to say there were no grounds for them doing that."
Spokesman for the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell said at the time: “They are innocent of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance and have been since day one – and this wrongly-imposed arguido status must be lifted as a priority and our lawyers will be pressing for that.”
There is no suggestion that either parent had a role in her disappearance.
Mr Gamble previously blasted trolls for spreading conspiracy theories about Kate and Gerry and creating a “vile cesspit of allegations”.
She disappeared from her family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, on the evening of May 3, 2007.
Cops are still trying to trace 13 suspects seen acting suspiciously in and around the resort before Madeleine’s disappearance.
Despite high profile police appeals and the release of a series of sketches and e-fits in the 12 years since, no trace of Maddie has been found.
Has anyone, by any chance, seen the people from “Mark Perlin’s Internet Brigade”?
DeleteThey seem to have disappeared.
Dão-se alvíssaras.
From the Star article.
Delete.......................
A BRITISH detective who led the UK investigation to find Madeleine McCann has accused Portuguese cops of bungling the initial investigation.
...............................
Any one know when he (Gamble) led the investigation?
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1139976298816823298
DeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
"Has anyone, by any chance, seen the people from “Mark Perlin’s Internet Brigade”?
They are gone, Textusa. Like one man I think it's called re-examining the situation a serious pause with their chief, getting some rest, holding oil cloths in one hand cleaning the barrels #mccann
8:21 PM - 15 Jun 2019
https://twitter.com/DuskatChristie/status/1139996719729397760
SunsetChristie @DuskatChristie
Replying to @umweltbuerger
They've all gone Very quiet on Perlin Mari - Perlin will never go away - not thru silence or digression, especially with the dogs. #McCann
9:42 PM - 15 Jun 2019
Anon,
DeleteIf you read the Strategic Debrief – Operation Task: Police Assistance to Criminal Investigations Abroad, you will see that CEOP played a much more significant role than just being a minor player in the operation.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2017/11/operation-task.html
And if you read in between the lines, you will come to some interesting conclusions. For example, why wasn’t given any visibility to the name of the individual who was said to have headed the operation about Maddie on the UK side of things?
We got to know all the names of the Portuguese, didn’t we? Why not of the British? Why has Jim Gamble’s name been given such high visibility if CEOP was just one of many agencies used in Task?
Maybe, just speculating, that sentence may be more truthful than it appears to be…
Not exactly an impressive add to a CV though.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1140186136637267969
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
August, 2007 If you've followed this case for even a year and claim to not have known Eddie was trained to alert to blood, you need to read the files. Preferably with the light on this time. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm#mg2472 …
#McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9LBO0VXkAAjx9D.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9LBPX7XUAA2GPn.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9LBPoIXoAUK4N3.jpg
10:15 AM - 16 Jun 2019
[Pic #1, between (++) is the text highlighted by Sade Anslow:
“EVRD
'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids (++) including blood in (++) any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted (++) using human blood and (++) stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.”]
[Pic #2, between (++) is the text highlighted by Sade Anslow:
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or (++) human blood scent (++). No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.]
[Pic #3, between (++) is the text highlighted by Sade Anslow:
“Wiltshire, UK
A female was abducted by her ex-boyfriend. Intelligence suggested that her ex-boy friend had taken her to his house. (++) A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stainss being alert indicated and forensically confirmed (++) as her blood. The suspect, a builder, was in possession of a van. This was searched and the EVRD dog alerted to a 'wacker plate', spirtit level, and shovel. A site was identified where the suspect had been working. The EVRD then located the body deposition site in an area of a garbage base that had been prepared by the suspect. He had returned with the dead girl, dug a grave in the centre, placed the body in the hole, replaced the spoil and then used the shovel, wacker plate and spirit level to return the ground to its original state.”]
*****
Maybe Sade Anslow should ask her friend JBLittlemore why the words above don’t mean in any that Eddie was trained to alert to live blood.
In Pic #3 there’s a hint: “He had returned with the dead girl…”
The gang is still determined to prove Eddie alerted to the blood left by a living person, supporting Ben, who doesn’t believe Eddie alerted to cadaver odour in the car.
DeleteThe 3 legged stool
Cadaver alerts, DNA evidence, Smith Sighting
Take away one leg
Blood in the apartment and car could have been the reason for the alerts.
Clothing, contamination with innocent explanation of floating molecules.
Take away second leg
If Perlin or any other testing proves it’s M blood - so what? Gerry already said she had nosebleeds. It was the blood of a living child.
Take away third leg
Smith sighting wasn’t G. It was out by an hour according to NT.
https://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1140360108293132289
Delete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @strackers74 @Rs6Mr @RichardSpicks
It's not weird, and Richard had the answer to this the other day & agreed; Textusa decided to insist Eddie DID NOT alert to blood. Textusa decided to lie. To deceive. That is definitely weird.
9:46 PM - 16 Jun 2019
*****
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X_oB8iPkgJs/XPaK8zCh2AI/AAAAAAAARyM/QOGJvh6iKRAgC493DToy-dRT1KgDc-UCACLcBGAs/s400/dead%2Bblood%2B2.jpg
É mais fácil apanhar um mentiroso do que um coxo.
When are we going to get part three? You told the frog it was going to be the next day, but that was a week ago. With respect, Textusa, no-one is interested in reading tweets from a load of randoms. The comments page is really boring now, they are not even comments about the page, so there is no discussion. So let us know when part three is going up and I’ll come back then.
ReplyDeleteSo you are not interested in Textusa exposing these frauds for what they really are. I am, as it sheds more light on the games being played. Do carry on sisters.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/SadeElishaa/status/1141114446141636608
Delete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElishaa
Replying to @andyLUHGNW3427 @BourgeoisViews and 48 others
Oh lord. A collection of random tweets where no one has a fucking clue what the blogger's point is. I recognize the style from somewhere 🤔
11:44 PM - 18 Jun 2019
*****
At least now we know who naughty anonymous is. The one so impatient to read part 3. It turns out that it’s a naughty girl and not a naughty boy.
What's the point of deploying a CSI dog, trained solely on decomposing blood from the living, to corroborate the alerts of a VRD you claim only alerted to blood from the dead?
ReplyDeleteFrog,
DeleteCould you please quote where we have said that the CSI dog is used to corroborate the alerts of the EVRD? Thank you.
I'll rephrase the question. What was the point in only deploying the CSI dog in the general area Eddie had already alerted, if not to corroborate Eddie's alert?
DeleteFrog,
DeleteThe point is in this tweet from JBLittemore. The reason why the word used is “refute” and not “corroborate”:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1136254795436756994
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
It's suggested on Textusa blog the only 'proof' accepted that EVRD also alerted to dried blood as well as/in addition to cadaver odour would have to come from M Grime's own words. Here they are. Note 2nd para, final sentence re CSI dog to 'refute the presence of blood'. #Mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8TI9wgW4AAgOdK.jpg
1:53 PM - 5 Jun 2019
[Picture attached says the following:
“It is the mission of Forensic Canine operatives to locate and accurately respond to the presence of generic human decomposition odour and dried human blood. (Victim Recovery Dog) This will be conducted in any, and all, expected operational contexts, environments and climates likely to be encountered when deployed by the host agency. This will include: surface and sub-surface deposition on land or in water, trace evidence, human decomposition odour transference, and crime scene investigation for generic human blood deposits. The remote screening of items of property and clothing will be included to assist in forensic recovery and provision of case intelligence
- A human blood specific detection dog (HBDD) will be supplied to provide a recourse that may be deployed as a stand-alone blood detection canine, or in association with a human decomposition detection canine. This allows for the further investigation of responses by the VRD to confirm the presence of human decomposition and refute the presence of blood.
Tactic applied in homicide cases to good effect.
- Both resources will 'search to contact' in large open areas, buildings, and vehicles, conduct property and vehicle line up screening, and conduct screening tests within a laboratory type context.”]
We will explain this in our Part 3 but the dogs have different missions, they help separately complete the puzzle, the reason why they work in tandem.
And that is the key point because the dogs to not corroborate each other. They each corroborate themselves. Where Eddie alerts there has been a cadaver, where Keela alerts there is blood. That simple.
That’s the reason the proven facts of listed by the courts does not say “the cadaver dog, corroborated by the blood dog, found marks of cadaver in the Scenic” but simply says that the cadaver dog found marks of cadaver in the Scenic.
Talking about Part 3 which we were writing until Anonymous 16 Jun 2019, 18:50:00 was very naughty and we put our pens down and stopped writing at once. He was a very, very naughty boy!
DeleteBecause of him we have spent since discussing within the team how many tweets from a load of randoms that no-one is interested in reading are we going to punish Anonymous 16 Jun 2019, 18:50:00 with and we have finally come up with a number: x.
So, only after we publish x number of tweets, are we going to restart writing of part 3. So the comments on the page will continue to be boring and as a gesture of goodwill to all those who use our pages to help them fall asleep. For them, and them only, we will keep the page really boring. Fascinating people these, who fall asleep after only a few words we write but then show they have read every single word we have written. And we are so good, they keep returning and commenting after swearing on what they hold most sacred they never would. Funny, funny people.
We also take the opportunity to inform readers that there will indeed be parts 3 and 4 on this topic (we can hear the insomniacs cheering in the background) but just a reminder that we are on summer break and between what that implies and the blog, that is our biggest priority. Besides, we have achieved fully what we proposed to have achieved with this: stop the dragging of social media into another damaging to the truth falsehood.
It’s our intent to time the publication of part 4 with the swearing in of the new PM but that’s only an intent because first we have to publish x number of tweets to punish naughty, naughty Anonymous 16 Jun 2019, 18:50:00.
Or if there are more naughty, the naughty and impatient people like Anonymous 16 Jun 2019, 18:50:00 because then we will have to add on a y to the x of tweets from a load of randoms that no-one is interested in reading that we will publish.
If they are so impatient to read Part 3 (and 4) they must learn to behave like adults.
Fascinating, the Rat Twitter account has been suspended.
ReplyDeleteWhy? As far as we read in the 4,284 tweets (in just 3 months) the Rat did not swear out of the ordinary, did not threaten anyone, did not reveal anything personal about anybody, and yet he was suspended.
So, why?
One cannot help but notice that it was very convenient in terms of timing. We would even say that the suspension had to do with what the blog said about the Rat. About what we thought was Rat’s mission and what we thought were going to be his tactics.
It’s a pity. We would have loved to see a “duel” between the Rat and Mr Thompson about there being a cadaver compound, the oily film defended by the Rat and the purely gaseous compound defended by NT. It would have been an interesting debate. One the blog did try to make it happen but failed as, it seems, now will never happen. Why are we not surprised?
About wondering how a polite account gets suspended, it’s very simple. One has account A and one has or knows who has account B. One just has from account A to DM a threat to account B. A mean, vile, graphic threat, violent and containing personal details. The content can be as vile as one wishes to be because there will be no police, no courts involved as it’s only for Twitter to see. Once received, account B reports account A and that account gets suspended. So simple and quick.
https://amp.9news.com.au/article/2821b220-4512-4928-b619-27bcf7c54cf9
ReplyDeleteNews / World
Three easy questions that could help answer what happened to Madeleine
By Mark Saunokonoko - 6 hours ago
It has been more than 12 years since Madeleine Beth McCann disappeared.
Nine.com.au's multi-episode podcast investigation Maddie shone a light on a number of curious and vexing issues about the world's most famous cold case.
Here are three questions that could actually be answered very easily, if the will from police forces and key people is there.
[Question #1] Why have Operation Grange and Portugal's Policia Judiciaria not taken up a remarkable offer made in the Maddie podcast to solve 18 inconclusive DNA samples?
It seems so straightforward.
There are 18 DNA samples potentially loaded with clues about what happened to Madeleine. There's a scientist with a proven international track record for solving precisely that kind of challenging and previously indecipherable evidence. Give him the samples to analyse.
As exclusively revealed in the Maddie podcast, one of the world's top DNA scientists, Dr Mark Perlin claims he can have results back on those 18 samples in less than two weeks. He's also offered to run those tests for Scotland Yard at no cost.
Scotland Yard's Operation Grange have sat on Dr Perlin's remarkable offer for over a year. Portugal's Policia Judiciaria also appear disinterested, having ignored Dr Perlin's approach for over a month.
Why?
Dr Perlin's advanced testing methods, based on computational software called TrueAllele, has overturned a number of wrongful convictions in the US. It has been used successfully in US state and federal court, and around the world.
In fact, for around 20 years Dr Perlin's lab Cybergenetics has been assisting the UK police for 20 years; he has successfully analysed previously "inconclusive" DNA evidence in major UK crimes.
So why not use Dr Perlin in the case of Madeleine McCann?
Dr Perlin has told Nine.com.au national crime labs are sometimes wary of his groundbreaking DNA technology, as it can expose flawed tests and mistaken results; those kind of revelations can be embarrassing for national crime agencies and their reputations.
The 18 DNA samples isolated by Nine.com.au and Dr Perlin were ruled inconclusive in 2007 because British testing methods at the time were inadequate and lacked the necessary sophistication.
The DNA evidence relates to key samples taken from inside apartment 5A and the boot compartment of a rental car hired 25 days after Madeleine went missing.
A cadaver dog team alerted in both those locations, although there is controversy about the reliability of cadaver dogs, which is why investigators consider alerts must be supplemented by additional evidence.
It is hard to understand why Operation Grange refuse to even acknowledge Dr Perlin's offer.
In the final episode of Maddie, Gerry McCann and the official Find Madeleine campaign were also notified of Dr Perlin's offer. There has been no reply, so far.
[Question #2] Have Operation Grange interviewed Kate and Gerry McCann or the Tapas 7? If not, why not?
In 2013, Scotland Yard launched Operation Grange, a significant strike force to investigate what happened to Madeleine in Praia da Luz.
Operation Grange have remained firmly tight-lipped about the investigation, revealing little to nothing about the leads they are chasing.
In 2017, Mark Rowley, then Scotland Yard assistant commissioner, publicly addressed questions about whether his detectives had ever formally questioned Kate and Gerry McCann since the launch of Operation Grange.
No, was Rowley's reply.
Rowley added that the Portuguese police had dealt with the McCanns and the Tapas 7 during their original 14-month investigation, which started in 2007.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteIt is unclear if any of the Tapas 7, including David Payne, the last person to ever see Madeleine alive outside of her parents, and Matt Oldfield, who entered apartment 5A 30 minutes before she was reported missing, have ever been questioned by cops at Scotland Yard.
Former Scotland Yard detectives and police officers that Nine.com.au spoke to in episode nine of Maddie expressed some surprise if the McCanns had not been questioned by Operation Grange police. They also criticised Operation Grange's perceived failure to not begin its investigation with no preconceived ideas about might or might not have happened.
The McCanns and their friends may be able to help police catch the offender. Any information from them may help advance the investigation, or help to finally rule out aspects of the investigation. If they haven’t been questioned already, they should be.
Last month it was confirmed Operation Grange had been funded to the tune of another $550,000 in tax payer funds, taking total funding to more than $20m.
[Question #3] Why did a reconstruction of May 3 not occur, and has still not taken place?
On a night of confusing events, one thing is very clear - a reconstruction of all the movements made by Kate and Gerry McCann and the Tapas 7 on the night of May 3, when Madeleine was reported missing, could yield vital clues.
As revealed in episodes one and two of Maddie, from the early evening, there are so many moving parts and people in play that it became very challenging for police to establish if and how the accounts of key players stacked up and held together.
According to the McCanns and their friends, adults were leaving the dinner table at the nearby tapas bar at 30 minute intervals, sometimes as regularly as every 15 minutes, to go check on the children.
The McCann's apartment, at the end of a five-storey block, was at best one minute walk from the restaurant. The other apartments were marginally further, including one holiday unit (where the Payne family stayed) located up a flight of stairs on the first level.
In April 2008, Portuguese police tried in vain to run a reconstitution of the night of May 3 to see if everyone's account of the night and various journeys they made all matched up.
But negotiations failed.
By 2008 the McCanns and their friends were all back in the UK. Documentation in the official police files reveals a chain of emails that were sent back and forth from the group to police. Concerns were expressed about flying back to Portugal, about privacy, a potential press frenzy and Kate and Gerry being named formal suspects.
In the end, what could have been a vital reconstruction assisting the effort to find Maddie never happened.
Portuguese police appeared to have questions around Jane Tanner’s sighting of a potential abductor with a child on the night of May 3; and how she walked straight past Gerry McCann and another Englishman, Jeremy Wilkins, without either man seeing her. These scenarios are explored in detail in episode two of Maddie.
A reconstruction could have helped answer some of this, as well as clarifying events earlier in the day when family friend David Payne visited Kate and the kids in apartment 5A.
Although there appeared to be reluctance from the Tapas 7 to return to Portugal at the request of police, Portuguese detectives must probably bear some responsibility for not forcing the issue of a reconstruction much sooner after Madeleine vanished, instead of the aborted effort in April 2008.
Portuguese police were also criticised for not separating and interviewing Kate and Gerry McCann when they were first questioned by detectives in Portimao Police Station.
LISTEN TO LATEST EPISODES OFMADDIENOW
Maps, graphics, stories and all episodes ofMaddiehere:nine.com.au/maddie
Questions #1 and #3 are pertinent and SHOULD be answered.
DeleteWe have already explained that for legal reasons that McCanns cannot be questioned by Operation Grange.
To clarify why question #2 is not pertinent:
DeleteSY could not question McCanns unless requested by the PJ under the terms of the EIO. We have covered this on the blog.
If the case is ever to be prosecuted in Portugal, which is the only country which can prosecute, anyone questioned in the UK would have to be questioned in a manner which met the requirements of Portuguese law.
https://www.publico.pt/2014/03/06/sociedade/noticia/autoridades-portuguesas-vao-poder-ordenar-escutas-em-outros-paises-da-ue-e-viceversa-1627145
EIO Guidance:
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/appref/The-European-Investigation-Order-APP-Guidance-Final.docx
Because it’s of interest to the case:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1140289771681587200
Boris JohnsonVerified account @BorisJohnson
I’m honoured to have the support of Bernard Hogan-Howe, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Together, we cut crime by 20%, cut knife crime by 17% and halved the murder rate. As Mayor I kept my promises and delivered for everyone. Now I want to do the same for our country
[video of 0:13 with BHH]
5:07 PM - 16 Jun 2019
Jim Gamble was shocked at this comment. All 'not quite' in it together!
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1140921638642507777
ReplyDeleteWhispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Simples. #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9VeH78W4AAvlC7.png
10:58 AM - 18 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1140922257923031041
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16
Keela was trained on dried blood from the living. Would she alert to blood contaminated by cadaver odour?
11:00 AM - 18 Jun 2019
*****
Frog,
Yes, because it’s blood. Where there’s blood, Keela alerts to it. She was not trained on dried blood from the living, she was trained on blood.
See:
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2019/05/blood-and-evrd-dog-part-1.html
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-q1tn4a_xlhA/XO1ClUup-2I/AAAAAAAARtk/9BB9l5J3t5EU5wul2Q_Z5U5iRX_1JZsdQCLcBGAs/s320/blood%2Bdecomposition.jpg
https://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1140921638642507777
ReplyDeleteWhispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Simples. #mccann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9VeH78W4AAvlC7.png
10:58 AM - 18 Jun 2019
Eddie (EVRD): I’m alerting to blood (I’m reacting to my target scent cadaver coming from that blood)
Keela (blood): I’m alerting to blood (I’m reacting to my target scent blood coming from that blood)
In the picture under a very clear heading of “DEAD BLOOD” a drawing with the ‘outside the body’ part of this picture:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YZD8W540Bzo/XPaAlsIRy8I/AAAAAAAARxs/B-C-09_1WiIgSWE5eTr3bPnuWCS-DDtQQCLcBGAs/s400/dead%2Bblood%2Bdecomposition.jpg
*****
https://twitter.com/factsonly10x/status/1140927837924397057
Crimes Unsolved @factsonly10x
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16
Cadaverine doesn’t come from fresh or old blood. XXX #mccann
11:22 AM - 18 Jun 2019
*****
One has to give it to Walker/Killa/FactsU, that he’s good.
Note how he’s specious with the terminology: fresh/old instead of live/dead.
Didn’t the reader just quickly associate fresh with live and old with dead blood? The reader did but he did not say it, did he?
Now, we don’t have the scientific background to confirm but we would say that we totally agree with Walker when he says “cadaverine doesn’t come from fresh or old blood” as that explains perfectly why decomposed blood does not smell rotten.
What we have defined as dead blood is the blood that has been contaminated with cadaver odour because it was inside a dead body.
The decomposing of blood does not produce cadaverine (amongst many other substances). Cadaverine (amongst many other substances) is produced in the human decomposition. When the blood is inside a decomposing body becomes contaminated with it.
So, to be clear, fresh and old LIVE blood hasn’t any cadaverine, whilst fresh and old DEAD blood have it (by contamination and not by self-production).
From one of our detractors, certainly to justify Eddie’s alerts in 5A:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1140812636331757568
Mark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Three questions that could help answer what happened to Madeleine McCann https://www.9news.com.au/world/madeleine-mccann-what-happened-to-maddie-theories-latest-news/2821b220-4512-4928-b619-27bcf7c54cf9 … #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9T6oWyUIAASFax.jpg
3:45 AM - 18 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/aacg/status/1141119402907185152
AnneGuedes @aacg
Replying to @saunokonoko
It could be helpful to prove that, after the medieval cemetery was disused, bones were gathered in an ossuary, built exactly under the G5A.
12:04 AM - 19 Jun 2019
*****
And what does Perlin’s work have anything to do with archeology and ancient history?
What medieval cemetery? What ossuary?
Where is the archeological evidence for this assertion? We haven’t seen any ref about archeology of Algarve to this said having happened. Nothing in PDL descriptions says and about the church moving bones.
Why just under 5A and no other apartments?
How unfortunate for the McCanns, only in their apartment (and car) was cadaver and blood alerted to. And only their apartment was built on top of ancient bones.
Only their child and no other, before or since, was taken from PDL.
One could put lots of laughing emojis here but that would be just a waste of laughter.
From "FB Anon":
Delete"So Anne Guedes' theory (and by association also NT's) is this then: That Eddie was first and foremost a cadaver dog when in 5A, but his alerts were to an ancient burial ground that was exclusively under 5A and no other apartments. But when alerting to the Scenic, Eddie was a blood dog, alerting to dried blood from Gerry Mccann having cut himself. You are right Text, this theory is so embarrassing, it's beyond laughter."
In NT's blog:
DeleteAnneGuedes19 June 2019 at 19:17
I sent an ironic tweet about a medieval cemetery's ossuary to Mark S. as I find he relies too much on Perlin and doesn't seem to understand that SY can't be interested in analyses that are beyond a remit restricted to abduction.
Any food for thought will do, even if just proving how persecuted T's blog is.
Very 'ironic' indeed! LOL (foot and mouth disease)
DeleteAnonymous 20 Jun 2019, 10:33:00,
DeleteOn reading Anne Guedes’ tweet, one can see how she may have been ironic. The entire thing is so absurd that if it wasn’t made up by Anne Guedes, the irony would have been clear to all.
If she’s indeed being ironic, she not only is contradicting NotTextusa’s graveyard theory but is literally mocking that theory, making an absolute fool of NotTextusa.
The fact that no one caught the irony, meaning that all thought she was being literal and many will continue to think she was and will think she’s now just backpedalling upon realising she overegged the pudding, should be food for thought for Anne Guedes, as it effectively shows how seriously her opinions are taken, not only by us but by all. She should do some introspection, if she’s capable of doing such a thing.
Maybe she is ironic when she says, unprovoked, on NotTextusa’s blog that we are liars without specifying the lies we have said?
Maybe she was being ironic when she called the girl’s stalker her “budding saviour”?
Is she being ironic when she says “even if just proving how persecuted T's blog is” or is she just literally jesting about the stepping up of the threats the blog has been subject to since November last year?
Was AG being ironic when she referred to GA as a marailva ?
DeleteA derogatory term.
Anonymous 20 Jun 2019, 18:49:00,
DeleteThe term is marialva and yes, it is derogatory.
https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1140812636331757568
ReplyDeleteThe Rat is back with a new account replying to Mark S.
About Perlin, his point being defence could object to his intervention as not being impartial if it got to court.
The answer would be for another company to refute or support Perlin’s conclusions?
My question is will Portugal use another company, or are they now just waiting for OG to conclude?
Is this why OG continue, to prevent Portugal from taking the case forward? Maybe both sides prefer to let it fade away?
https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1141312619460124673
ReplyDeleteandy @andyLUHGNW3427
Replying to @TheBunnyReturnz @PollyGraph69
Texsauce? Is that who you mean bugsy? From the little I've read it still doesn't even understand the dog alerts 🙄
12:51 PM - 19 Jun 2019
****
“it still doesn't even understand the dog alerts”
A gender-conscious individual. Is that you MichaelBWanker? 😂
https://twitter.com/andyLUHGNW3427/status/1141349919351070720
Deleteandy @andyLUHGNW3427
Replying to @strackers74 @xxSiLverdoexx and 2 others
Isabelle spoke with the pj, they confirmed strmix were due in Portugal. This was 3 weeks or so ago
3:20 PM - 19 Jun 2019
*****
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
https://twitter.com/factsonly10x/status/1141281101895413762
ReplyDeleteCrimes Unsolved @factsonly10x
Replying to @PollyGraph69 @andyLUHGNW3427 and 48 others
Text blog will be gone by Autumn.
10:46 AM - 19 Jun 2019
*****
Has anyone seen any other blog being constantly threatened as ours is?
When one has nothing to say, one resorts to threats.
At least we are glad that the blog will only be closed after the McCanns are arrested, as according to McFadden and her inside informations, they will be in April this year.
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1138826421915312128
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
To all those who question whether Eddie would alert to blood from a living human:- Eddie could not have been lawfully trained on blood from a dead human in the UK. Grime speciifically said Eddie alerted to dried blood from a living human, just as Keela did. #mccann
*****
https://twitter.com/ArataMylov/status/1141366518137024512
Ismail Arata Mylov @ArataMylov
Replying to @FragrantFrog
And you’re pissed because you though there was a biological difference between blood from a living human and blood from a dead human?
Do you think blood from a living human goes on living?
I despair...
Educational standards....
4:25 PM - 19 Jun 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141383942475567104
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
You take everything so literally
Would you be a luvvie & tell Textusa that as he seems to believe Eddie would only alert to decomposing blood from a cadaver, not a living person.
Despite Grime stating otherwise.
5:35 PM - 19 Jun 2019
*****
We are VERY, VERY CURIOUS what the Rat will reply to this.
Unpublished Anonymous at 20 Jun 2019, 21:29:00,
ReplyDeleteEven after whining about us over at our ossuary (which is buried below NotTextusa’s blog) you still insist in trying to have your comments published here. Fascinating.
If we are that bad, why the insistence?
Looking forward to see your whining at the ossuary. Good-bye.
https://twitter.com/Rs6Mr/status/1141772321360883713
ReplyDeleteMrAndrewRS6 @Rs6Mr
The Main man & the best of the best gets a mention in this article!
#CadaverDogs #MartinGrime
#Evidence #DogsDontLie
#McCann
https://loudounnow.com/2019/06/20/appeals-court-upholds-castillo-murder-conviction/
7:18 PM - 20 Jun 2019
[tweet liked and retweeted by the Rat]
*****
Content noted.