Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 44 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 55 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Ben 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 4 hours ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Mayerling 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (5 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #761  
Old 01-17-2017, 07:31 AM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

As for "they were doctors so would have been around corpses" - I very much doubt if GPs, in the normal run of things, would be having much to do with corpses. It wasn't as if they were pathologists in a hospital.

In my experience a GP gets called when somebody dies and then they look at the body, sometimes take a pulse and then announce "Death is extinct" and off they go - charging the family 100 for signing a death certificate.

I can't see a GP would have the odour of corpses on them, and especially while they are on holiday.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 01-17-2017, 07:56 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi JohnG
Thanks for posting this-I did not know about all this. however...



when was the last time they had been around a corpse? I find it hard to believe this-surely there clothes had been washed at least a couple of times, and they had bathed, and been in a pool and or ocean?? would corpse scent still be detectable many days, cleanings and swimming later? don't think so.



but there were TWO dogs involved-Eddie the cadaver dog and another- Keela-a human blood sniffer dog.

Keela alerted to human blood inside the apartment by/on the couch and on the master bedroom deck.

also, they were taken to various other locations-other aprtments, the beach, another suspects and the dogs only alerted to the Mccanns apartment and the car. Even if you rule out Eddie, you still have the other dog. and taken all they did, it still seems to lean in the direction of death/murder in the apartment.



I don't think they needed to know anything about it. the parent/s killed her during the day and dumped her somewhere-the ocean, beach who knows? then went to the bar and tried to arrange it so someone else would find her missing. when the morons didn't even check properly, kate eventually was forced to make the "discovery". Its uncannily similar to the ramseys setting it up so that someone else would discover the problem.
classic guilty behavior especially involving a family member.
Hi Abby,

You make a fair point about Keela, the blood dog. However, apparently this dog is able to detect human blood on items that have been washed or cleaned many times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Madeleine.html

Another problem with British sniffer dogs is that they're not trained to approved standards, so there's no way of gauging their competence-in fact, Eddie doesn't seem very competent at all! There's also no national standard for accrediting these dogs and handlers, or for monitoring their success rate.

Also, as regards the blood evidence, no blood was ever discovered forensically in either the apparent or boot of the car. In fact, no cellular DNA was positively identified as Madeleine's, although the DNA of one of the Portuguese forensic technicians was identified!

The window of opportunity for the McCann's to have disposed of a body-in a foreign country and so effectively that it's never been found-is extremely tight. For instance, Maddie was seen at a kids' club until around 5:30, and Gerry then had a tennis game that lasted from 6:00pm until 7:00pm. Then, at around 8:30, they went for lunch with their friends.

Crucially, during this critical period, i.e. after 7:00pm, not a single witness saw either Gerry or Kate driving off, or returning by car; and, if they had any involvement, they must surely have used a vehicle.

Last edited by John G : 01-17-2017 at 08:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 01-17-2017, 09:11 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Concerning the reliability of Keela, the blood dog. According to Martin Grimes' [the handler] report, the dog alerted to the curtain area, and "this would indicate to the likely presence of human blood." http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

However, the problem is the curtains were forensically examined and no traces of blood were found: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 01-17-2017, 09:31 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,488
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hi Abby,

You make a fair point about Keela, the blood dog. However, apparently this dog is able to detect human blood on items that have been washed or cleaned many times: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Madeleine.html

Another problem with British sniffer dogs is that they're not trained to approved standards, so there's no way of gauging their competence-in fact, Eddie doesn't seem very competent at all! There's also no national standard for accrediting these dogs and handlers, or for monitoring their success rate.

Also, as regards the blood evidence, no blood was ever discovered forensically in either the apparent or boot of the car. In fact, no cellular DNA was positively identified as Madeleine's, although the DNA of one of the Portuguese forensic technicians was identified!

The window of opportunity for the McCann's to have disposed of a body-in a foreign country and so effectively that it's never been found-is extremely tight. For instance, Maddie was seen at a kids' club until around 5:30, and Gerry then had a tennis game that lasted from 6:00pm until 7:00pm. Then, at around 8:30, they went for lunch with their friends.

Crucially, during this critical period, i.e. after 7:00pm, not a single witness saw either Gerry or Kate driving off, or returning by car; and, if they had any involvement, they must surely have used a vehicle.
no I agree, it would have been tight. but the beach/ocean was only a few blocks away. and I don't think they even necessarily needed a car. they could have just carried her or put her in a suitcase or duffle bag.

don't get me wrong--I think its totally possible she was abducted, I just lean towrd the parents at this time. as with the ramseys I'm at about 30/70 between intruder vs parents.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 01-17-2017, 10:13 AM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

I think the evidence of the dogs is valid - the fact that they corroborated each other in the location behind the sofa, and the fact that they didn't alert in any other apartment or home, or near any other cars.

Kate has never found anyone to corroborate the story that she had been in contact with no fewer than 6 corpses shortly before her holiday

Kate's actions immediately following her discovery are massive red flags: leaving the twins unattended, IMMEDIATELY assuming and very noisily announcing an abduction rather than the more likely scenario of Madeleine wandering off in search of her parents

The fact that not one but several family members and friends were immediately told the shutters had been smashed or jemmied, which was simply not true

The fact that Kate invented a story about the curtains whooshing up into the air when she opened the door, whereas police crime scene photos showed them very neatly tucked down between the bed and the wall. Did she tuck them in herself before calling police? Or is she making up stories?

Refused a polygraph.

Refused to answer questions.

Immediately sought to dismiss the sniffer dogs evidence instead of being frantic with worry wanting to know if it was true.

As a father there is no way I would've fled the country on being made arguido. I would've stayed and done everything possible to cooperate and clear my name in order to focus police on other suspects. I could never have come home and abandoned what I thought was my missing child.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 01-17-2017, 12:19 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
I think the evidence of the dogs is valid - the fact that they corroborated each other in the location behind the sofa, and the fact that they didn't alert in any other apartment or home, or near any other cars.

Kate has never found anyone to corroborate the story that she had been in contact with no fewer than 6 corpses shortly before her holiday

Kate's actions immediately following her discovery are massive red flags: leaving the twins unattended, IMMEDIATELY assuming and very noisily announcing an abduction rather than the more likely scenario of Madeleine wandering off in search of her parents

The fact that not one but several family members and friends were immediately told the shutters had been smashed or jemmied, which was simply not true

The fact that Kate invented a story about the curtains whooshing up into the air when she opened the door, whereas police crime scene photos showed them very neatly tucked down between the bed and the wall. Did she tuck them in herself before calling police? Or is she making up stories?

Refused a polygraph.

Refused to answer questions.

Immediately sought to dismiss the sniffer dogs evidence instead of being frantic with worry wanting to know if it was true.

As a father there is no way I would've fled the country on being made arguido. I would've stayed and done everything possible to cooperate and clear my name in order to focus police on other suspects. I could never have come home and abandoned what I thought was my missing child.
I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Fled the country?

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

Last edited by John G : 01-17-2017 at 12:38 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 01-17-2017, 12:53 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Regarding Keela and the "blood evidence" it's also worth pointing out that the dog would alert to dried blood from a living person, which surely makes this type of evidence pretty much useless, especially when you consider the potential time lag: "Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old." (Martin Grime, the emphasis is mine).

Martin Grime also said that a cadaver dog will alert to any part of a human being that's decomposing, such as hair bones or flesh, which creates an enormous amount of possibilities, such as a child falling over and grazing their skin, or even gum bleeds: https://madeleinemccannthetruth.word...on-those-dogs/

Last edited by John G : 01-17-2017 at 01:16 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 01-17-2017, 02:06 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 1,132
Default

I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Demonstrating that they were not always 100% correct is not the same as demonstrating they were never correct, let alone the fact that they alerted to no scents in any other apartment, any other car during that investigation. The only places either of them alerted to blood or cadaverine were in the apartment of a missing child and that child's parents' rented car.... Fine, let's just call that one almighty coincidence....

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Nobody said it was a "statement", and therefore the unaltered nature of the non-existent statement is irrelevant - it was the clear and consistent impression the McCanns gave to several relatives and friends hours after the discovery.

Trish Cameron - "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...” (Notice how accurate her recall is, how it tallies exactly with K&G's timeline? So - front door lying open? Shutters jemmied open?)

Brian Healy - "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

Jon Corner - "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her."

Jill (or Gill) Renwick - "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine."

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Wrong, unless I was hallucinating when I saw and heard her, on camera, describe and demonstrate with her arms the dramatic whoosh of the curtains blowing out into the room when she opened the door after it had blown closed. You're wrong. You need to study this a bit more deeply. Perhaps you've only read her official police statements? She embellishes considerably later. Maybe you can explain why.

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Another straw-man: I never said they were asked to. They offered to, in September 07 after being made arguidos. When an independent expert offered to carry one out they changed their minds and refused the offer, offering the excuse that it wouldn't be legally acceptable in a Portuguese court. So what? Passing it would've been a real win in the court of public opinion. As their odious spokesbast*rd Clarence Mitchell explained, they didn't need to take one because they are telling the truth. I think we call that begging the question.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Yes I agree, unless your child is alive, and you are innocent, and your only concern is to give as much information as possible in order that your child might yet be found.

Fled the country?

Uh, yes.

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

Now there you may have a point.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

I didn't. I've read two books, the entire police files, and watched every interview they've given, and all the documentaries. But hey, thanks for patronising me, it makes a change from the straw-man arguments.

As Gerry himself said:

"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Yeah, that must be a good thing, when you think your daughter may be alive and suffering, and you want her home as quickly as possible...

Last edited by Henry Flower : 01-17-2017 at 02:09 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 01-17-2017, 03:51 PM
louisa louisa is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 987
Default

A good post, Henry.

As for one of the group going back every half hour to check on the kids - we have to take that with a pinch of salt.

One of the waiters stated he only saw one of them leave the restaurant during the time the group were there.
__________________
This is simply my opinion
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 01-18-2017, 05:35 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Flower View Post
I've already dealt with the unreliability of the canine evidence. Eddie's reliability is destroyed by the Jersey case debacle. Evidence from Keela is obviously false, or at least seriously undermined, because not a microscopic trace of blood was ever found by the investigation-anywhere.

Demonstrating that they were not always 100% correct is not the same as demonstrating they were never correct, let alone the fact that they alerted to no scents in any other apartment, any other car during that investigation. The only places either of them alerted to blood or cadaverine were in the apartment of a missing child and that child's parents' rented car.... Fine, let's just call that one almighty coincidence....

Shutters? No such statement was made, that's simply a myth. In fact, only Kate made a comment about the shutters, and that was simply to say they were raised. This statement was never altered. Moreover, the fact was confirmed by another independent witness, Amy Tierney. The story concerning the shutters being being "jemmied" originated from a Yorkshire Post story, following an interview with Trish Cameron, Madeline's aunt.

Nobody said it was a "statement", and therefore the unaltered nature of the non-existent statement is irrelevant - it was the clear and consistent impression the McCanns gave to several relatives and friends hours after the discovery.

Trish Cameron - "They last checked at half past nine and they were all sound asleep, sleeping, windows shut, shutters shut. Kate went back at 10 o'clock to check. The front door was lying open, the window had been tampered with, the shutters had been jemmied open or whatever you call it and Madeleine was missing...” (Notice how accurate her recall is, how it tallies exactly with K&G's timeline? So - front door lying open? Shutters jemmied open?)

Brian Healy - "Gerry told me when they went back the shutters to the room were broken, they were jemmied up and she was gone. She'd been taken from the chalet. The door was open."

Jon Corner - "She just blurted out that Madeleine had been abducted. Kate said the shutters of the room were smashed. Madeleine was missing It looks as though someone had gone straight past the twins to get to her."

Jill (or Gill) Renwick - "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine."

Curtains? Kate said they were open and...that's all!

Wrong, unless I was hallucinating when I saw and heard her, on camera, describe and demonstrate with her arms the dramatic whoosh of the curtains blowing out into the room when she opened the door after it had blown closed. You're wrong. You need to study this a bit more deeply. Perhaps you've only read her official police statements? She embellishes considerably later. Maybe you can explain why.

Refused to take a polygraph? Nope, that's not true either. In fact, they weren't even asked to take a polygraph.

Another straw-man: I never said they were asked to. They offered to, in September 07 after being made arguidos. When an independent expert offered to carry one out they changed their minds and refused the offer, offering the excuse that it wouldn't be legally acceptable in a Portuguese court. So what? Passing it would've been a real win in the court of public opinion. As their odious spokesbast*rd Clarence Mitchell explained, they didn't need to take one because they are telling the truth. I think we call that begging the question.

Refused to answer questions? Kate refused to answer questions on the advice of her lawyer after being made arguida (suspect). I call that sensible.

Yes I agree, unless your child is alive, and you are innocent, and your only concern is to give as much information as possible in order that your child might yet be found.

Fled the country?

Uh, yes.

"Six corpses"? This is complete twaddle. There's not a shred of evidence that Kate ever made such a comment. The report originated from a Portuguese tabloid, and then was simply repeated by the British press.

Now there you may have a point.

The moral of the story? Don't believe everything you read in the press.

I didn't. I've read two books, the entire police files, and watched every interview they've given, and all the documentaries. But hey, thanks for patronising me, it makes a change from the straw-man arguments.

As Gerry himself said:

"One good thing to come out of all this is that there is so much in the press, nobody knows what is true, and what isn't." - Yeah, that must be a good thing, when you think your daughter may be alive and suffering, and you want her home as quickly as possible...
Okay let's focus on the fact, shall we? Firstly, the dogs. There is no documented evidence that they were ever successful. In fact, the only other documented case is the Jersey debacle. And this was what an official report from the Central Department of Criminal Investigation had to say:

"If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he's looking for, why, in most of the cases, do we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place he had already passed several times?

"On one of the films, it's possible to see that Eddie" sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air, and only after the toy is hidden does he mark it. Why didn't he signal it when he sniffed it the first time?

"Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts in the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and as already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found."

And this is what Martin Grime had to say:

"Blood that is subject to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location. It is possible, however, that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for dead body scent."

And he concluded:

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is cadaver scent contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

Well, as noted above, there is no "corroborating evidence", therefore the "evidence" from the dogs can be safely dispensed with.

Next, the shutters. As I've noted the McCanns' said nothing in their statement to the police about the shutters being "jemmied" etc, or to the witness Amy Tierney. And, frankly, I'm not interested in what your sensationalist books may have to say about other witness statements that do not form part of the official record, but are quoted from tabloid accounts. In any event, witnesses can miss-remember information over time, particularly if they've discussed events with other witnesses.

And why on earth would the McCann's seek to lie about such matters? I mean, it's not as if there weren't plenty of witnesses who could contradict them, such as the numerous police officers who entered the apartment, and the other 20 individuals the Keystone Cops allowed to contaminate the crime scene.

Kate may have said the curtains "whooshed". However, considering it was night time and the window was open this is perfectly plausible. Anyway, what does it matter? And who cares? It's not relevant to the case at all.

Polygraph? Are you winding me up? If the McCann's passed the test, conspiracy theorists such as yourself would have said that they're unreliable anyway. And, if they failed, you would say "told you so". Unbelievable! Anyway, back to the facts, you might want to read this report from the American Psychological Association, which highlights the fact that their entire basis is simply "theoretical", with no proven validity. http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

"Fled the country". Is this something you read in another one of your sensationalist books [I'm beginning to think that the best thing to do with them is to burn them]? I mean, you make it sound is if they went on the run following a jailbreak from Alcatraz, when a they did was leave Portugal!

Finally, please explain to me how the McCann's successfully disposed of a corpse, in a country they were unfamiliar with, to the extent that no remains were ever found.

Last edited by John G : 01-18-2017 at 05:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.