Ed Madeleine McCann Mystery

[Mojo]

The dog is trained to react to a cadaver smell. Its got a well established history of being right. You for some reason think them alerting for a cadaver is not evidence, im really confused by your logic.

The dog is trained to react to the smell of particular chemicals that are produced by cadavers, but the same chemicals can also be produced by things other than cadavers. This means that the smells can be present, and the dog can react, in places where there hasn't actually been a cadaver. I'm a little surprised that anyone would have trouble following this logic.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Not "only" but inclusively by human beings. I'm sure there were some of those in the apartment at some stage.

I gather the answer to the question I actually asked is "No".

Why didn't you just say so?





Apart from us not knowing whether this is actually the case, there could be many reasons.

You'd realise this yourself if you understood better where cadaverine and putrescine come from.






The "living thing" in this case was presumably a human being.

One of the (living human) sources of cadaverine is urine.

Blood and urine in the same spot? I'm pretty sure that's been known to happen.

So in this resort of apartments, which would all be laid out, cleaned by the same people using the same things. You seem to think its perfectly find that a cadaver odor is found in only things belonging to the mccanns, the ones who just happen to have their child "abducted"?

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

The dog is trained to react to the smell of particular chemicals that are produced by cadavers, but the same chemicals can also be produced by things other than cadavers. This means that the smells can be present, and the dog can react, in places where there hasn't actually been a cadaver. I'm a little surprised that anyone would have trouble following this logic.

Why were these smells only produced in things relating to the mccanns, and in none of the many other places the dog searched, don't you think its a little bit strange? I mean its very strange to me, how you all neatly put this down to coincidence.

 

[IamFreeCanIGo]

Blood and urine in the same spot? I'm pretty sure that's been known to happen.

Sorry, are you suggesting the dogs were wrong and it was blood and urine that fooled them? Can you please show me one case of the cadaver dog mistaking urine for a cadaver.

Also why did it not signal on the bathroom floor, wouldn't there be urine there?

Its almost like you are clutching at straws, all this time these police have been using dogs to find dead bodies, but the dog just smells urine. haha.

 

[Mojo]

Oh look at this case.

It's easier to look at if you provide a link.

Dogs find cadaver in car boot, no dna found. Man found guilty of murder. Looks like the dogs were correct this time

It looks as if there was a little more to the prosecution case than that.

And the fact that "the dogs were correct this time" doesn't mean that they are correct every time. And, of course, the fact that the defendant was found guilty doesn't actually mean that "the dogs were correct this time". It just means that a majority of the jury were sufficiently convinced by the prosecution case to convict.

 

[Akhenaten]

So in this resort of apartments, which would all be laid out, cleaned by the same people using the same things.

You don't know this to be the case, and you certainly don't know that this is the only possible source of the chemicals.

You seem to think its perfectly find that a cadaver odor is found in only things belonging to the mccanns, the ones who just happen to have their child "abducted"?

As I've tried to explain to you, the odours involved are not produced exclusively by dead bodies.

You seem quite resistant to this information, for some reason.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Oh look at this case.





Dogs find cadaver in car boot, no dna found. Man found guilty of murder. Looks like the dogs were correct this time

But in the absence of the body, there is no way that the responses of the cadaver dogs would have been anywhere near enough to convict, or even bring charges. the cadaver dog evidence was just one small part of a lot of other circumstantial evidence (phone records, grazes to the suspect's knuckles, CCTV of the victim and partial reconstruction of the suspect's car journey etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley

I notice that you didn't link to the wikipedia article you quoted from, so that people could see all the other evidence for themselves, but just cherry-picked the part that you *think* supports your point. Nobody would deny that when a cadaver has been present, the dogs will pick that up, so it should be included as part of the circumstantial case. But the dogs reacting is *not* incontravertible proof of the presence of a body, and in the absence of any other evidence, it is more likely due to a false positive.

 

[Mojo]

Why were these smells only produced in things relating to the mccanns, and in none of the many other places the dog searched, don't you think its a little bit strange? I mean its very strange to me, how you all neatly put this down to coincidence.

That's totally irrelevant to the point that if something other than a cadaver can produce the chemicals that the dogs are trained to react to then the dogs can react in places where there has not been a cadaver. The dogs are trained to react to the smell of the chemicals; they don't have some psychic ability to determine whether the chemicals were actually produced by a cadaver.

 

[Nessie]

Oh look at this case.





Dogs find cadaver in car boot, no dna found. Man found guilty of murder. Looks like the dogs were correct this time

Indeed, but was there other evidence as well, or was it just the dogs evidence that got the conviction? You missed that out.

You previously dodged the question would you convict the McCanns of murder purely on the evidence of the dogs? It is appropriate to ask it again now.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why were these smells only produced in things relating to the mccanns, and in none of the many other places the dog searched, don't you think its a little bit strange? I mean its very strange to me, how you all neatly put this down to coincidence.

So you have no way of eliminating other causes?

How was forensic evidence of a corpse so completely removed from all the places the dogs reacted? If the dogs were indeed following the scent of a corpse how was that corpse able to leave no other trace (from which the scent would be generated)?

 

[Akhenaten]

Sorry, are you suggesting the dogs were wrong and it was blood and urine that fooled them?

No.

To start with, the blood may well have been a correct indication.

Apart from that, all I suggested was that urine is but one possible source of cadaverine or putrescine.

Strawmen seem to be another.

Can you please show me one case of the cadaver dog mistaking urine for a cadaver.

Possibly, but since you're not even bothered to look into the information I've already provided for you I don't feel particularly motivated to do so.

Also why did it not signal on the bathroom floor, wouldn't there be urine there?

I don't know, and neither do you.

Its almost like you are clutching at straws, all this time these police have been using dogs to find dead bodies, but the dog just smells urine. haha.

You should probably go back and read what I've actually posted.

 

[Nessie]

So in this resort of apartments, which would all be laid out, cleaned by the same people using the same things. You seem to think its perfectly find that a cadaver odor is found in only things belonging to the mccanns, the ones who just happen to have their child "abducted"?

Did the cadaver dog search any other apartment or was it just the McCanns?

 

[Tomtomkent]

That's totally irrelevant to the point that if something other than a cadaver can produce the chemicals that the dogs are trained to react to then the dogs can react in places where there has not been a cadaver. The dogs are trained to react to the smell of the chemicals; they don't have some psychic ability to determine whether the chemicals were actually produced by a cadaver.

And assume for a second that some effort were made to preserve a potential crime scene for investigation. Would that not make it less likely that efforts were made to clean up after the kinds of human interaction that might cause a false reading?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Take a breath everyone - he's been banned (sockpuppet of banned member).

 

[Mojo]

Oh look at this case.





Dogs find cadaver in car boot, no dna found.

Remarkable: a DNA-free cadaver. Or perhaps you mean that the dogs didn't find a cadaver in the boot.

 

[Akhenaten]

D'oh.

I was just getting interested.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Its almost like you are clutching at straws, all this time these police have been using dogs to find dead bodies, but the dog just smells urine.

So from this is it safe to assume there have been no instances that the dogs failed to find a body? No instances a dog reacted for any reason other than a body?

Would you care to cite one case where a dog reacting alone, with no other evidence, was enough to prove beyond any doubt that a corpse had been present?

Of course, if the dogs in this case had found the Mccan child dead, you would be entilted to say for sure the dogs reacted to the smell of a cadaver.

haha.

Are you sure it is appropriate to laugh at the idea of a missing, possibly dead child?

 

[Nessie]

Damn and blast. I wanted answers to my questions!

 

[Matthew Best]

D'oh.

I was just getting interested.

Me too. Particularly interested in my own apparent lack of critical thinking skills - I'm afraid I find it all too easy to be convinced that an appallingly badly argued proposition is wrong, when of course someone else arguing it incredibly well could still convince me.

I really must work on this.

 

[Akhenaten]

Me too. Particularly interested in my own apparent lack of critical thinking skills - I'm afraid I find it all too easy to be convinced that an appallingly badly argued proposition is wrong, when of course someone else arguing it incredibly well could still convince me.

I really must work on this.

Me too mate, and probably all of us.

It's a lifelong thing, I reckon.