Saturday, 30 May 2015


Following my previous post, Textusa came back with some excuses. She does this a lot, claims that she was trying to keep it simple so as not to confuse your little brains

We would like to inform readers that for the current post we avoided trying to be too technical as to how cadaverine effectively contaminates.
Bless, that was good of her  
This was done on purpose because we wanted to keep away from discussions in that direction and the possibility of Murat’s house being or not a safe house used in the first hours after death not being discussed.

We will deal with the technicalities of the subject but can say, for now, that a problem raised in the detection of contamination is that a living human being produces cadaverine.
Problem? Why problem, oh wise one? 

Martin Grime is clear that EVRD dog are not trained for live human odours, so won't mistake any odours produced by a living person.

Grime also says his dogs showed no interest in pseudo-scents and it wasn't used as training aid for them.

But this would take us deep into technicalities which, as we have said, wanted to avoid for now.
Ah. Technicalities. So in other words, you don't know. Okay.  

We tried the best we could to keep things to basics, we simplified so readers could better understand.

What is relevant for now is that 3 locations were marked in apartment 5A and a 4th one, location X, which we’re certain existed, is not. That unmarked 4th location means that it is possible for the body to have been where no cadaverine was left behind.
''....and please ignore all the other stuff which I got wrong and which NotTextusa pointed out to you''  

Also relevant is that until proven the contrary, if one removes the object contaminated with cadaverine then one also removes all traces existing in it with it.
No, that is incorrect. You cannot remove the airborne particles of what is a very volatile mix. And she is still referring to it as cadaverine, so she clearly still doesn't get it. 

Lastly, the gate proves that non-direct contamination is not that easy or, at least that straightforward.
No it doesn't 

In the name of fairness we would like to warn Insane as it seems he’s being rather flippant and buoyant about it that “no direct contact” means only that no direct contact was made. He should go read what he advises us to read and understand what that phrase means exactly.

Warn me? You are ''warning'' me? Go fuck yourself, you power crazed loon.

You claimed contamination with cadaver odour - you said cadaverine, but that's what you meant - could only occur upon direct contact with the skin of the deceased.
That is totally wrong, and what's more I sent you a link to a scientific paper which explains it and which clearly you cannot have read

So when you write another post contradicting everything you wrote in this one, just be aware I will be here to point it out.


When is a liquid not a liquid?

Oh god, is it really Friday already?

Here goes, then.

Friday, 29 May 2015


Textusa has no idea what these dogs actually do

1. Introduction

The highest praise that our work can have is to have people who do not subscribe to our swinging theory, partly or totally, come to help us because they think our effort is honest to find the truth.

The discussions are quite interesting and intense as all discussions are between people who argue in good-faith.

Oh god, the customary self-praise. I may vomit.

Questions arise and from them counter-questions and both the questions and the answers serve for each side to test their own theories resulting in correction or confirmation of what was previously believed.

These discussions have been a great help for us to correct our path more than once and to help us make our progress on good and solid ground.

In return, we hope to have helped people to correct some of their ideas but we won't presume that, only they can tell.

You haven't

Mutual respect ensures no one loses anything because of a correction. On the contrary, a correction is always an invaluable gain in the quest of truth.

Ha! You hate being corrected

In these discussions no one wants to prove the other side wrong. The objective is for each side to prove that they’re not wrong.

Is it? One would have thought the objective was to arrive at the truth, but clearly not in your case

Nothing more gratifying than to write, or to read, “ah, now I see what your point is, let me think on that” after a fruitful discussion.

Our friends Sheharazade and DogWhisper are among these people

Note for new readers - they are Textusa's assistant halfwits

One point in which both disagree with us is in our belief that Maddie’s body was taken into Murat’s property on the night of May 3.

A belief without any foundation whatsoever

They say the body was never there because the property was searched with a very, very fine toothed comb by the authorities (forensic and other), and they found nothing.

But mainly the reason they think the body was never there is because both ERVD and blood dogs did not signal anything in that property.

Their logic is based on the following 3 convictions:

#1 - Cadaverine cannot be washed away, so once something is contaminated with the cadaverine then there will always be traces of it that will allow for its detection;

#2 - If Maddie left traces of cadaverine in apartment 5A, as she did, then she must have left traces of cadaverine in that property too, aggravated by the fact the presence of the body would have been further into the decomposition process, even if only by a few hours on a chilly night;

#3 - The ERVD dog is absolutely reliable and because it searched that property thoroughly and did not mark anything then there was no cadaverine in that property and that means Maddie's body could not have been there.

Based on these 3 convictions, both come to the conclusion that Maddie could not have been in Murat's property.

We agree with all of the convictions. As such we will take them, ipsis verbis, as assumptions in this post.

We will even add a 4th assumption: on that night cadaverine did NOT cross the mind of any of the participants. That means no specific care was taken to avoid cadaverine contamination that night.

But although we fully agree with their convictions, we don't agree about their conclusion, that there's proof the body was never in Murat's property.

We think that the fact that Eddie did not signal any cadaverine in Murat’s property proves only that there was no cadaverine in that property to be marked and that doesn't prove that Maddie's body was never there.

The objective of this post is to prove our point, having as a baseline the 4 listed assumptions.

This post was promised to DogWhisper a little after we published our “Planting a spy” post which we published Feb 13 this year.

DogWhisper, here it is finally.

Okay - let's pause there. What follows is Textusa explaining how she arrived at this conclusion. It's all shite of the highest purity, but I am leaving it in

2. What is cadaverine

We have to start with basics. We will try to keep it to a minimum.

This is the problem - you don't understand the basics

Cadaverine is a compound formed during the breakdown in the human dead body of lysine, an amino acid. The technical terminology is that cadaverine is the decarboxylation product of that amino acid, lysine.

It is naturally produced in the decomposition of animal tissue.

It has an extremely pungent odour, strong and distinct. It is the major contributor to the smell of rotting meat.

To say ERVD dogs can mistake cadaverine for blood is wrong. Cadaverine is cadaverine and will only be cadaverine. An ERVD dog does not mark blood. When an ERVD dog marks a location it means that cadaverine is present there.

Nonsense. The ERVD dog in question was never trained on pseudoscents. He was trained to respond to the odour of human cadaver or the products of the decomposition of human tissues. He was not trained to specifically react to cadaverine. Please try to get your head around the fact that these are not the same thing.

That doesn't rule out the possibility of blood also being present. If a blood dog marks also that location it means that both substances are present.

God give me strength

ERVD marked the cadaverine, the blood dog the blood. No confusion or mixing up of smells.

These dogs are specifically trained and work like radios where the dial is fixed so that it can tune only one station. There may be hundreds or even thousands of radio-frequencies flying about in the air but that particular radio will only capture and play that particular frequency no other.

Nope - the scent of cadaver is a complex mix of different molecules

The chemical formula for cadaverine is: C5H14N2

When one joins (in chemistry and biochemistry “joining” has a very specific structural meaning) carbon (C), hydrogen (H) and nitrogen (N) atoms in the right number and sequence, then one gets a cadaverine molecule.

It's called ''bonding'' dear. Please don't try to opine on chemistry; you are obviously clueless

The only ones that make the nerve endings of the trained dog's noses tingle to this stimulus and thisstimulus only - the ERVD dogs

There is no such thing as artificial cadaverine. There is artificially produced cadaverine and naturally produced cadaverine.

Do not try this at home

The video above shows 2 methods how cadaverine can be produced artificially

3. Cadaverine, the substance

The Maddie case is filled with myths. Most have been intentionally planted to misinform and mystify.

For example, and related to this post, a notion has been implanted that both cadaverine and DNA contaminate easily.

It's as if all of us have microscopic sprinklers all over our body which spray bodily fluids in all directions wherever we pass, whether we're dead or alive.

You do not require bodily fluids in order to contaminate with either

One of the things that has led to some misconceptions about cadaverine is that it's generally unknown what the substance looks like.

Is it really? That may have led to your misconceptions, but not generally. Contrary to your mistaken beliefs, no-one would find neat little pools of cadaverine lying about.

It's imagined to be something like sweat, a transparent liquid that trickles and drips from a dead body and that soaks and drenches the area surrounding it.

Who imagines it to be like that - you? I have never seen anyone suggest that anywhere.

But as can be seen in video above (at 04:38) cadaverine is not a liquid but an oily substance:

Oil is liquid, you dingbat.

Please note the amount of energy that was required to artificially produce the substance.

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

We don’t need to be dead to produce body oily, waxy substances from our body. For example we all secrete sebum.

Sebum is odourless but its breakdown by bacteria can produce strong odours.

A line copied straight from the Wiki entry.

Our skin is oily. That's the reason why our fingerprints are imprinted when we handle things with our fingers. Our fingerprints are our oily individualised signature that we leave when we touch things with the tip of our fingers.

It's not only oil; mostly, it's perspiration, but do carry on.....

The fact that cadaverine is an oily substance means that it doesn’t drip like sweat.

Pure cadaverine made in the lab, you mean? That has nothing whatsoever to do with cadaverine synthesized in the body during decomposition

Note that in the first few hours, although cadaverine is being produced mostly inside body, only that being produced by the skin contaminates surface.

This is completely incorrect. See this paper - Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares. Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.

In this study, carpet tiles were used as the medium to 'capture' the odours produced by a recently deceased cadaver. The tiles were never in direct contact with the cadaver, so the transmission of cadaver odour was airborne

This is a paper of central and vital importance in this case. The fact that you clearly haven't read it speaks volumes about your lack of research

The quantity produced at this stage is only paramount in making the skin of the dead body skin slightly oilier and nothing more than that. It doesn't drip. It doesn’t trickle down or create a puddle. It doesn't drench clothing.

Absolute nonsense. The skin does not become 'oilier', and I cannot imagine what gave you that idea. You seem to imagine a cadaver with pure cadaverine leaching from it's pores. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basically, this entire section is pure invention on your part, born of your failure to understand that the cadaver does not synthesize pure cadaverine as if it was a lab, which really is biology for 10 year olds.

Cadaverine contamination at this stage is made only by the direct contact of the skin of the corpse to the surface.

Totally and utterly false, for the reasons already given. As a reminder, the carpet tiles used in the study referenced above were never in contact with the skin of the cadaver

It is our opinion that clothing worn would be sufficient to block contamination. We will see later in the post evidence for this.

It isn't, as was proven by the aforementioned study. Your ''opinion'' is completely worthless. You have provided absolutely no evidence to support this.

3. Time & Dogma

We believe that Maddie died between 18:30 and 19:00 in the evening of Thursday May 3 in apartment 5A.

We also believe that she was taken around 21:15/21:30 by Gerry McCann from apartment 5A.

Will you providing any evidence - that's proper evidence, not one of your ''we showed this in such and such a post'' cop outs?

Here we have a dogmatic question. Many people do not believe in the existence of Tannerman, the man carrying a child that Jane Tanner alleges she saw crossing the street in front of her that evening.

We happen to believe that Tannerman is very real. That what Jane Tanner describes is indeed what she saw. Where she lies is from where she says she saw both Gerry and Jez talking and later Tannerman.

So basically, this entire piece is simply your fantasy, your opinion. None of it is based in fact.

As we have explained in 2 posts “Tanner's abductor, a tale told by a special friend” and “The way I see what Tanner saw”, we think that the Tannerman episode is what Jane Tanner really saw that night from inside apartment 5A, where she is with her sedated daughter waiting for Gerry to take the body to a safe house and for him to come back, pick her daughter up and begin what would be known as the Smith Sighting.

So you think that first Gerry paraded around town with his dead daughter. Then he returned and paraded around town with the sedated daughter of someone who didn't even like him very much. Okay.

She describes what she has really seen, which explains the very unusual, to say the least, the way in which the child was being carried (please revisit our post “A human being is always human”) but fails to realise that for her to say she saw what she did indeed see she would also have to have been seen by Gerry and Jez.

She did, in our opinion, see Gerry talking to Jez and then saw Gerry carrying Maddie and disappear in Rua Agostinho da Silva, heading East towards Murat's property.

No Textusa post is complete without some meaningless arrows

In our opinion, the body was taken by Gerry McCann, on foot, to Murat’s property where it was kept up until around 04:00, when body was moved by car from there to the next location.

And why are you of that opinion?

Basically, you just made it up. If you have any evidence at all of her body being taken to Murat's house, let's see it

We believe that this location was the water treatment station located on the EN537 road that heads East to Lagos from Luz.

We believe this for 2 reasons.

The first it's because for us it's the only logical explanation for Euclides Monteiro to be considered a person of interest. As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked.

Absolutely ludicrous

The second, as we explained in our post “Class Acts” the only logical reason for us for SY to have moved from the show it was putting on in the West of Praia da Luz in June 2014 to a single day search on the other side of town was to show to PJ that the water treatment station was a place of interest.

So now you think the police are sending you ''coded'' messages? You need to get yourself looked at.

In our opinion, Euclides Monteiro received a call from the Ocean Club that night to allow the use of the building that night, most probably not knowing what would be stored there.

Again - in your opinion. Where is your evidence for this?

In our opinion the body was moved from Murat's property to the water treatment station at around 04:00:

More opinion. Is there anything in this you haven't simply made up?

A water treatment works. Fuck knows.

This means that the body remained in apartment 5A for about 3 hours (18:30 - 21:30) after death and that when body taken from Murat's property 9.5 hours (18:30 - 04:00) had passed since time of death.

Sorry - your explanation for this theory is where?

4. Volatile Contamination by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

Smell is caused by the stimulation of the olfactory nerve by airborne molecules. These may be organic or inorganic.

The nerve endings in the nose are hit by these flying molecules and this triggers an identification process in our brain in which one first recognises one is smelling something and then, if that smell is familiar, identifying what one is smelling.

As an example of a known volatile contamination is the smell of tobacco smoke in one's hair and clothes. Or when one enters an hotel room for smokers. That unpleasant smell that non-smokers, and some smokers, complain about.

That smell is the result of tobacco smoke flying molecules bombarding its surface in such a quantity that they cling on to the fabric/surface, impregnating it with the substance up to a point when airborne molecules are also released from there.

Although cadaverine has a distinct strong, pungent and nauseating smell, under normal/cool temperatures, the body in the first hours does not liberate enough VOCs to produce a volatile contamination. Much is due to the fact that the body is “skin wrapped”.

This is absolutely incorrect. Published studies have shown the detectable (to cadaver dogs) presence of the volatile products of decomposition within a PMI of an hour and a half. Nothing to do with being ''Skin wrapped''. That explains why there might not be physical evidence in the form of recoverable residues

We believe that Maddie’s body when both in apartment 5A and in the first location, or safe house, did not produce a volatile contamination and only contaminated with cadaverine when and where its skin directly touched a surface. Any other form of contamination is simply not realistic.

You are completely wrong, and despite your claims, for which you provide no evidence, there is ample published data to prove you are wrong.

The debate on this post is about Murat's property, which we believe, as we've said to have been that first safe house. But the focus on that property has nothing to do with our beliefs but with the fact that property was searched by Keela and most importantly by Eddie.

Another claim with no evidence

5. Locations of cadaverine in 5A

In the discussions between us and Sheharazade and DogWhisper we have stated that the proof that the fact the ERVD dog didn't mark anything in Murat's property doesn't prove anything concerning the body having or not having been there lies in apartment 5A.

Your ''theory'' has no value. They are right, you are wrong. The absence of any alerts there does not prove her body was not there, as the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it makes it less likely and is certainly more compelling than your evidence which appears to consist of your ''because I said so''

The reason for that statement is simple. Apartment 5A is the only “real estate” location (the Renault Scenic being the other) where the ERVD dog did mark the substance.

Understanding where and why cadaverine was detected there helps us understand why no cadaverine was to be marked in Murat's property (or any other safe house, if it wasn't Murat's property).

Just to reiterate, there was no detection of cadaverine. That's not what these dogs do. The dog alerted to the possible presence of the products of human decomposition

All this we remind the reader is under the following 4 assumptions: cadaverine cannot be cleaned, same kind of traces would be left both in 5A and Murat's property, ERVD dog is 100% reliable and cadaverine didn't cross anyone's mind that night.

This was what was marked by both blood (Keela) and ERVD (Eddie) dogs in the apartment 5A property:

I'm fast forwarding through all the next section as we all know where the dogs alerted

“a) 5A

21.16h [we believe to be a mistype as it makes sense to be 20.16h] * 20.30h * dog that detects cadaver odour

at 20.20h the dog ‘marked’ the area of the closet of the couple’s bedroom;

at 20.22h the dog ‘marked’ an area of the living-room, on the back of the couch, next to the window that faces the street;

20.47h * 21.20h *dog that detects the “presence” of blood

at 21.10 the dog ‘marked’ an area of the living-room, on the back of the couch, next to the window that faces the street, on the floor.


f) garden belonging to apartment 5A (next to it, with access by the veranda and stairs)

21.49h * 22.00h dog that detects cadaver odour

the dog marked one of the areas of the garden, at the right-angle corner, at the vertical of the small balcony”

Eddie (cadaverine) clearly marks 2 very precise locations inside apartment: behind the couch in the living room and in the closet in the parent’s bedroom.

He marks a third location, outside, on the flower bed in the backyard.

Oh good - the return of the ABCs

We have then the following 3 locations where cadaverine was marked in apartment 5A. location A, living room behind the couch; location B, parents' bedroom in the closet and location C, at the SW corner of the backyard in a flowerbed.

We would like to note that Keela (blood) doesn’t mark either the closet or the flowerbed. In those 2 locations, only cadaverine was marked. Keela, in apartment 5A, only marks location A in the living-room.

Although the report states that Eddie (cadaverine) in the living room marks “behind the couch”, the dog video shows clearly that he’s much more precise than that:

Eddie marks the area on the floor behind the couch at the centre or the wall where the window is.

In the parent bedroom Eddie points to the second shelf of the closet on the left:

We have no image of Eddie marking cadaverine in the backyard. However we have the information that it's at a vertical to the apartment and we have a photo from the PJ Files showing the area of the backyard:

With these pieces of information we would redefine the 3 locations (A, B and C) mentioned above as being:

Get the fuck on with it

We can conclude that in apartment 5A cadaver odour, or cadaverine, was detected in the following precise locations:

A – behind the couch in living room, at the centre where the window is;

B – on the 2nd shelf of the closet nearest to the wall in the parents’ bedroom;

C – SW corner of the backyard in the flowerbed.

6. Contamination

Location A tells us the body laid behind the couch long enough for cadaverine to develop and contaminate the floor.

This tells us that calling authorities was a possibility that was raised and taken into account as they let the accident scene remain as untouched as possible.

It ''tells'' you nothing of the kind

The decision to go through with the abduction simulation was not a sudden one. It was taken under pressure but not under panic.

Oh here we go

All the pros and cons were discussed and the group, the one that made the final decision, thought that the consequences of calling in the authorities far outweighed risking simulating an abduction.

And when did they have the meetings with Mark Warner, the other guests, the tapas waiters, the nannies...........?

For those who say Gerry wouldn't walk around with a child because he wouldn't risk being recognised, please be reminded that the biggest risk taken that night was to simulate the abduction. All other risks result in this one having been taken.

Uh huh

The fact the body lay beneath the window had very 2 important forensic consequences.

The first is that it allowed for cadaverine to develop and for the skin to contaminate the floor. We would say that in this location only the cheeks of the face did the contamination.

You have arrived at this idiot conclusion as you imagine cavaderine to be oiling it's way out of her pores. You really are very very dim. To reiterate, Cadaverine is but one of the molecules which contributes to the smell of human decomposition. The body does not secrete neat cadaverine onto the skin as Textusa would have you believe. The volatile products of decomposition, which include cadaverine and many others, start to be produced from the moment of death and have been shown to be detectable by dogs after a post mortem interval of around an hour and a half. It is possible they may be detected earlier than this, but that is the smallest PMI which has been studied. The minimum PMI for detection of death by dogs has not been studied.

The second is that the body bled all that it had to bleed there. Once the heart stops pumping, very quickly a body stops bleeding as there’s no pressure forcing it out.

There was no confirmed blood recovered

Location B, the closet, because of its distance from both A and C, tells us the body was intentionally “stored” temporarily. It was put “away” in our opinion for 3 reasons:

There now follows a load of bollocks

- to clean the blood so that there would be no visible traces of the body having been inside the apartment, as Maddie was supposed to be abducted no traces of the body could be found anywhere inside;

- to keep it away from guilty consciences, namely Kate's sight so she could be more easily controlled and act according to the required circumstances as decided by whoever had the power to decide;

- to wait there for the darkness of night so that it could be taken out of apartment while the group was having “dinner” at Tapas.

As we said, we don’t think anyone thought of cadaverine at this stage.

When we say traces were cleaned, we mean blood. No one made an effort to clean cadaverine specifically but they did make a conscious and meticulous effort to clean up any and all traces of blood.

There was no blood. But do go on.

This means that from location A onwards the body was carefully handled.

To ensure that the body did not contaminate anything with any visible bodily fluid. Visible, so it doesn't include cadeverine per se.


And that is how you wire a plug. Next week: Changing a light bulb!

Without any other information, these 3 locations “describe” the path the body followed within the property of apartment 5A that night: from A to B, from B to C and from C to outside the property towards safe house.

No they don't

This path proves something we have spoken of before, and that is there was no volatile contamination. Eddie doesn’t mark anything in between these locations, mainly between locations B and C which happened last.

Christ, you are seriously dim. Do you think gas molecules remain stationary for three months? Seriously?

You need to listen to Martin Grime explain this. Air moves inside a room. The scent will often accumulate in an area. Your idea that they created a scent trail which would be there months later is bizarre in the extreme.

He doesn't mark because there wasn't anything to mark.

It was too early in the decomposition process (and nothing present like heat to cause it to accelerate) to generate enough airborne molecules of cadaverine to impregnate any object so no residue of it was left anywhere between the mentioned locations.

Rubbish. Total and utter rubbish as ably demonstrated in the Osterhelweg paper

Much less was the body “dripping” cadaverine (nor blood) when transported between the locations otherwise a trail would have been marked.

No body 'drips' cadaverine, however long it has been dead. The contamination is gaseous and a mix of different molecules

In these first hours the cadaverine would only be making Maddie’s skin slightly oilier and that would not have been perceptible.

Absolute rubbish

We repeat, in our opinion only direct between skin and surface would cause a contamination.

You are utterly and completely wrong

7. Closet

The closet gives us the first indication as to why Maddie’s body could have been in Murat’s property without any cadaverine being signalled.

From what Eddie indicated it seems the body laid on the second shelf of closet. As indicated by the arrow in the picture above.

What would happen if that second shelf was removed? For reasons of making sure no blood traces were detected, for example?

God, this branch of Ikea has gone really downhill

The shelf was not removed so we're just placing here the hypothesis and putting a very clear and objective question, if the closet looked like the one above (second shelf removed) would Eddie mark any cadaverine in this location?

What the fuck are you on about? A freshly dead intact body is not like a defrosting chicken, dripping onto every surface. And certainly not dripping Cadaverine as in your crazed imagination

He would not.

To those now responding that Eddie would mark the location because the body would have contaminated the volumetric area around it, namely the walls of closet, by volatile contamination we will say for now that they're assuming body would have to be reeking with cadaverine at this stage, having produced enough of it to generate such kind of contamination.

Anyway, we ask these people to hold on to their answer for just a little while longer.

This is all bloody rubbish

For the rest of us, the simple removal of the contaminated object, in this case the shelf, would stop any detection because there was nothing there to be detected.

Note that we removed the shelf but it could have been simply replaced by another upon which no body had ever laid. No one would know the difference.

If one removes a contaminated object (replacing it or simply eliminating it), one removes all residues of cadaverine with it.

No. Utterly wrong.

Eddie wouldn’t mark cadaverine in that closet but we would know that a cadaverine contaminating body had been there.

Was Eddie being unreliable? No, he simply can't mark what is not there even though it had been there before.

Yes he can. That's the whole point.

Eddie detected it there because no one thought of cadaverine otherwise that shelf wouldn't be have been there when he entered that room.

But not having cadaverine in mind it would be unlikely for someone to remove a shelf from apartment 5A as it is an integral part of closet.

What has the closet, or more precisely the closet shelf, to do with Murat's property?

No one likes to have a dead body in their house. Much less that of a complete stranger.

So if body was on Murat's property then we think it was laid on some “disposable” object (or at least one that didn't hold much affection) that could later be easily removed and destroyed.

This for 2 reasons, the first would be to be on the safe side and the second to erase any physical memory of the body ever having been there.

Neither reason has to do with cadaverine per se but both avoid Eddie the ERVD dog ever marking the substance in the property because it would no longer be there although it had been.

8. Location X

Location X is another thing in apartment 5A that shows clearly why cadaverine was not marked in Murat's property even if Maddies' body had been there.

We would even say location X it is what proves it.

What is location X?

Location X is where, IN apartment 5A to where the body was taken from location A, beneath the window and before it was put in location B, the closet.

The fact that no blood was marked in the closet means that the body was cleaned up and redressed somewhere in the apartment.

Where in apartment 5A is location X?

So in your mad theory, they keep moving the body to different locations in the apartment? Like Fawlty Towers? This is even madder than usual

We don’t know and that's exactly the point.

The body, unlike we showed above, did not go directly from location A to location B. If that had been the case then the blood that had soiled that corner of the living room would be the same blood that would soil the shelf in closet.

Jesus wept.

The body was taken from location A to location X and only then from there, to location B.

In location X we say the body was undressed of the blood-soiled clothing, was cleaned and redressed into a clean set of pyjamas (the one Jane Tanner would later describe in such detail).

When the body was put in the closet it was clean and ready to be transported out of the apartment. No blood contamination and cadaverine contamination happened only because no one thought of it otherwise they would have taken precautions to avoid it.

However, precautions were taken in location X to avoid any sort of contamination, unwittingly that of cadaverine. The focus, as we said, was to stop any blood contaminating the surface it was laid on.

Whatever was put between the body and surface, a towel, plastic, we don't know but was enough to avoid skin from contacting the surface. Without that contact there was no contamination. That's why we don't know where location X is.

All of this is of course complete nonsense as we know from the Osterhelweg study. The cadaver does not need to be in contact with a surface to contaminate it with the odour of decomposition

This is a really shit scratchcard, I haven't won anything

Above we have signalled where location X could have been: the coffee table, the dining table, the kitchen counters, the bed in the kid’s bedroom or the bed in the parents’ bedroom. Any of these locations would serve the purpose. Some more practical then others, some more logical than others.

Logic and practicality would point to the bed in the parents’ bedroom. It would be the nearest to the closet and if Kate was taken to kids' bedroom, it would be away from her sight.

But the bottom line is that we do not know where location X is. It doesn't matter where it was waht matters is that we don't know that.

For pure graphical reasons, to describe what we think happened to the body inside the apartment we chose as location X the bed in the kids' bedroom. We could have chosen any other X from the picture above.

Now be careful, Bond, cut the green wire

The body was taken from location A to location X, cleaned and then to location B where it was put on shelf waiting to be taken from the apartment.

What has location X to do with Murat's property?

If the same protection that was used in location X in apartment 5A and which protected the surface from any contamination (unwittingly also against cadaverine) was also used at Murat's property then no contamination would have happened there either.

So your ''evidence'' for the body being moved to Murat's house is that no dogs alerted there. Good luck with that one.

If there was an undetected location X in apartment 5A as there was, then there's no reason for not having a similar one at Murat's property.

Once the body was taken away from either it wouldn't be possible to mark as it wasn't in apartment 5A.

9. The gate

The last piece of information from apartment 5A that can help us understand how the body may have been at Murat's without leaving there any vestiges of cadaverine is related to location C, the flowerbed.

It provides us with precious information about how cadaverine contaminates or how it doesn't (or didn't).

in blue, Gerry McCann, in red Jez Wilkins - then they do-si-do their partners and start again.

The cadaverine there shows that the taking of the body out of the apartment was interrupted. We believe it to have been when (1) Gerry senses that someone is outside (confirming how silent Praia da Luz was and how out of context Maddie's alleged crying episode was) and (2) goes to the corner of the backyard where he lays the body.

At this point he may or may have not seen who was coming but he would have realised that this was an opportunity to have a witness who could later be used to confirm the “the T9 child checking system” and (3) so walks out to make contact which he does.

And what better way to be seen than by talking to the person you want to be seen by?

But according to you, he is a co-conspirator, isn't he?

The “Jez Meeting” is as genuine as the Smith Sighting. Both have people who are unaware they're being pulled into the story, Jez in this one and the Smiths in the other, and both episodes have the same person, Gerry McCann, getting them into that story on purpose.

Gerry could have simply let Jez walk by and wait until he was out of sight but instead chose to come out and force that contact. Location C, shows clearly that if he had stood still there, any passerby would not have noticed him.

The only difference between the 2 episodes is that the Jez Meeting was a chance seized while the Smith Sighting was a thought out encounter.

The Smith Sighting could have been with somebody else other than the Smiths, it just happened to be them. If the Smiths weren't where they were, Gerry would have walked until he saw that someone had seen a man carrying a little blonde girl in his arms that night.


Back to the Jez Meeting. Gerry exits via the back gate and sees that it's Jez from “tennis” and forces the encounter.They talk. Jez has seen him and Gerry has told Jez that he's just out from checking the kids. Then (4) Gerry walks towards Tapas and Jez continues his way back to his apartment. Once Jez turns the corner, Gerry turns back and goes into the backyard to resume taking of body out of apartment 5A.

How is this episode relevant in terms of cadaverine contamination analysis?

It matters because of the gate. Gerry touches it with his hands at least 6 times:

1. to open and to close gate to go and talk to Jez;

2. to open and to close gate to retrieve body;

3. to open and to close gate to leave property.

Why doesn’t Eddie mark the gate? Shouldn't it be contaminated by Gerry's hands?

Now is the time when those who said the closet would still have cadaverine after the shelf was removed due to volatile contamination to step forward. If the body reeked of cadaverine to cause that sort of contamination then Gerry's hands would have been soiled with the substance after having carried the body from location B to location C and from picking up the body at location C and exiting the property.

One cannot say that in the closet there was a significant amount of cadaverine to cause a volatile contamination and at the same time state that afterwards there wasn't enough of it to contaminate the hands of who was carrying the body.

But one can say, like we say, that in either place there wasn't enough cadaverine to cause contamination outside the direct contact with the skin of the cadaver.

Gerry's hands were not soiled with cadaverine because they only touched the pyjamas and the fabric was enough to stop his hands from being contaminated.

Eddie does not mark the gate because there is no cadaverine there to be marked.

The gate also helps to shows how if the shelf from the closet had been removed or replaced, Eddie would not have marked the closet.

And it helps confirm that if the body in Murat's property, possibly contaminated an object removed from premises for reasons already said, then Eddie would not have any there cadaverine to mark.

You are highly highly stupid.

Leaving aside the desperately flawed logic of the entire scenario for a moment, let's just look at the science.

Residual, detectable cadaver odour in an apartment 3 months later, when said apartment has been mostly unoccupied since the events of May.

Why would you expect to find the same on a gate which is in the open and exposed to the elements around the clock

10. The car

Up to this point we can say that 3 words prove why Eddie wouldn't mark any cadaverine at Murat's even if the body had been there. The words being shelf, X (as in location) and gate.

Note that this means that we also think that if the safe house was any other than Murat's property, it would have been equally useless to take the dogs there to mark anything. They wouldn't mark there as they didn't at Murat for the exact same reasons.

We could rest our case here but won't.

If the reader has noticed we have used always the term “Murat's property” instead of “Murat's house”.

We have done so for a reason and that is we don't think the body was ever inside Murat's house. We think it was only inside the property.


Because simplicity and logic.

Once decided to risk the simulation of an abduction three things were perfectly clear:

1. The body had to be taken as soon as possible out of apartment to a safe house;

2. The apartment could not show any vestiges of a dead body ever having been in there;

3. A second location after the safe house, to be decided, had to be found in order to take the body as far away as possible from the area during that night, as it would be too risky to have the body nearby the next day when police would be there searching for the girl. This meant, inevitably the involvement of a car.

The body had to be taken out of 5A to a safe house as soon as possible to give time for Gerry to go on his walk around town and be seen at Tapas.

The safe house had to be nearby because once the alarm sounded their movements would be under observation so anything outside a reasonable “search perimeter” was not acceptable.

The safe house would have to belong to someone who could be trusted;

Also if things went wrong, the body would have be near enough to be retrieved and placed somewhere it could be “found”. Somewhere near enough to make the scenario of Maddie walking out by herself credible. The only problem would be to justify the lesions but as a lost resort an insane murdering patsy could be “found” even if never caught.

The choice of Murat's property as the safe house seems to be the most logical choice to make in our opinion;

But the fact the body could not be nearby the next morning, implied immediately, the need for the use of a car, even if when decision made, its destination was uncertain.

So most likely a car, probably from the resort, was taken to Murat's property and parked there before the alarm waiting for the moment to be used.

It's in this car we think the body was kept while in Murat's property. Not in the house.

Once that car left the property it would have taken all cadaverine vestiges with it, making it unrealistic to expect Eddie to mark any cadaverine.

10. Conclusions

Does all of the above prove the body was at Murat's? No, it doesn't and he objective of the post was not to prove that.

The objective of the post was to prove that one cannot rule out the possibility of the body having been there because Eddie did not signal cadaverine in that property.

Nor can one rule out any other nearby property.

Note that we never doubted the dogs' capabilities. We couldn't because we believe fully in them.

In our opinion it's wrongly said that ERVD and blood dogs do not constitute evidence. In our opinion they do. They constitute clear evidence that cadaverine and blood were found.

What they do not prove is whether that cadaverine and that blood belong to Maddie. That's up to forensics to prove. Not if there was cadaverine or blood but to who it belonged to.

With the forensic evidence we can see that existed in the PJ Files that existed any forensics, as long as uncorrupted and not permeable to external influences, would do that fairly easily.

What rubbish is this? The residues recovered have been analysed and do not identify a source. Haven't you read the files?

We consider both Eddie and Keela to be true heroes and propose that one day, when truth emerges, a statue of both should be made in their honour.

And placed in the backyard of aparment 5A.

Nine times in this post you use the expression ''in our opinion''. Your entire theory is completely bogus.

So much for your claims that your posts are based on fact and on research. It is worrying that you don't even have a true perception of how contamination occurs, and you have entirely invented a phenomenon of ''oily cadaverine'' on the skin of a cadaver. You have entirely ignored proven science and substituted your lame theories.

This is, by some distance, your most ridiculous post so far

Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Let's have a little recap, shall we?

Okay, here's the sequence

I'm guessing it's PMT day Chez Textusa, as she is even more snarly and paranoid than usual. Having already been extremely rude to one poster, she then has a go at another who is trying to help her satnav herself out of the farm track she has driven down.

Something I recall from sage - it's not always as simple as "What was the computer counting".

Sage offers a very special feature - the ability to construct any report conceivable which is what gives them such a competitive edge. The package comes with a suite of reports that can be either used or modified for each individual user. When you use the report generator it takes you into a labyrinth of tables and fields where it's very easy to choose the wrong option and produce a garbage report.

You can sometimes tell which fields were added by simply looking at the report headers - if they're not lined up or if the spacing seems wrong. In this example if the field "type" wasn't taken from the right table or of the joins weren't done correctly it will produce incorrect totals.
  1. Insane,

    This is from a personal page, from a Gustavo Cxxx, a C# Web Developer:

    Help desk & Webmaster
    May 1998 – June 2000 (2 years 2 months)Lisbon Area, Portugal

    Profitus was a retail management software house, which developed vertical products for businesses such as shops, restaurants and hotels.

    • Providing first and second line support to Profitus’ software resellers
    • Communicating with the development team in order to solve issues and improve Profitus’ products
    • Creating, setting up and maintaining the company’s website (HTML / CSS / JavaScript / Hosting / DNS register)
    • Producing website activity statistics
    • Managing the company’s email accounts and aliases

    It seems that Profitus is made in Portugal and doesn't use sage.

    Not seeing what's the use to pay for a software that "takes you into a labyrinth of tables and fields where it's very easy to choose the wrong option and produce a garbage report" and where a "suite of reports that can be either used or modified for each individual user".

    Or to put in another words, pay to have unreliable reports produced (as anyone can intervene in it) with totals different from what is listed and so handing out to their employees information that may or not be true ir even make any sense.
  2. Ocean Club used a programme that is the anti programme. All is explained.

I have left that comment in from Shaherazade, as she is so dim it reminds me I need to buy lightbulbs tomorrow 
  1. Textusa,

    I am anon 15:41:00 not Insane.

    I don't know Profitus so I used Sage as an example because it's a popular system. My point is that many systems facilitate report generators and I have used them many times in the course of my work. What we don't know is if there was a similar reporting tool on Profitus.

    If I buy a system without a report generator it means that I have to pay out £££ for each custom report that I require. If I buy a system with a report generator I just need to pay an initial fee for training and I can have all the reports that I want. I can then lock down the options so only trained users can modify reports.

    I've worked in systems, programming and data for over 30 years and seen many instances where reports don't "add up". There is usually a very rational and logical explanation.

    My earlier comment wasn't aimed at poking holes in your thesis - just to share with you what I know. If you'd rather I refrain from commenting in the future then I will do so.

Nice, friendly reply, yes? 

  1. I have used Sage and Access as well as other in house systems to produce reports and NONE of them produced anomalies.... both reported what was asked of the software and had criteria that could be selected to suit the reason for the report. If the software isn’t capable of producing a report as required the operative would not request it. We used Sage at our business and reports were pulled off for various reasons such as for the bookeeper, for the accountant, the bank, marketing purposes, re-ordering stock and very importantly for producing invoices for customers.

    A huge organisation like MW would not use crap software and I’m surprised Profitus doesn’t come after them for trashing the reputation of their software.
Oh do piss off, halfwit 
  1. Bosede,

    Our apologies. As your intial comment had clearly the intention to misinform we confused you with Insane.

    Intention that continued with the comment that followed.

    We're sure you will understand the reason for this confusion, if you're not Insane that is.

    It was fascinating to read this phrase: "I've worked in systems, programming and data for over 30 years and seen many instances where reports don't "add up"."

    But as you say "There is usually a very rational and logical explanation".


    We think we have given the very rational and logical explanation as to why data listed does not tally up with the totals added up by the computer. And because it is a computer, it always adds up correctly what it is told to add up.

    Thank you.
Thank you?? Oh not at all.  Strange, it sounds an awful lot like ''Go fuck yourself'', doesn't it? 

Monday, 18 May 2015

More from the asylum....

Guess what?

This one isn't from me either, dingbat 
Something I recall from sage - it's not always as simple as "What was the computer counting".

Sage offers a very special feature - the ability to construct any report conceivable which is what gives them such a competitive edge. The package comes with a suite of reports that can be either used or modified for each individual user. When you use the report generator it takes you into a labyrinth of tables and fields where it's very easy to choose the wrong option and produce a garbage report.

You can sometimes tell which fields were added by simply looking at the report headers - if they're not lined up or if the spacing seems wrong. In this example if the field "type" wasn't taken from the right table or of the joins weren't done correctly it will produce incorrect totals.
  1. Insane,

    This is from a personal page, from a Gustavo Cxxx, a C# Web Developer:

    Help desk & Webmaster
    May 1998 – June 2000 (2 years 2 months)Lisbon Area, Portugal

    Profitus was a retail management software house, which developed vertical products for businesses such as shops, restaurants and hotels.

    • Providing first and second line support to Profitus’ software resellers
    • Communicating with the development team in order to solve issues and improve Profitus’ products
    • Creating, setting up and maintaining the company’s website (HTML / CSS / JavaScript / Hosting / DNS register)
    • Producing website activity statistics
    • Managing the company’s email accounts and aliases

    It seems that Profitus is made in Portugal and doesn't use sage.

    Not seeing what's the use to pay for a software that "takes you into a labyrinth of tables and fields where it's very easy to choose the wrong option and produce a garbage report" and where a "suite of reports that can be either used or modified for each individual user".

    Or to put in another words, pay to have unreliable reports produced (as anyone can intervene in it) with totals different from what is listed and so handing out to their employees information that may or not be true ir even make any sense.

This was a corker

'' It seems that Profitus is made in Portugal and doesn't use sage.
As was this:
Not seeing what's the use to pay for a software that "takes you into a labyrinth of tables and fields where it's very easy to choose the wrong option and produce a garbage report" and where a "suite of reports that can be either used or modified for each individual user".

I am so glad to see you are using a reliable source, Textusa
The linkedin page of someone who worked for Profitus in 1998. Impressive

Readers should take note of how much supposed ''information'' you discern from a quasi-source, dear............

From the asylum.....

From the asylum, amusingly

Big round table with about 10 chairs shown on image 3 at the tapas
  1. Insane,

    The picture you refer to is one we have used in our "The proof Ocean Club reads Textusa". We then called it picture #11.

    Quoting that particular post:

    "UPDATE (8 Mar 2014 23:31:00):

    We received a “DO NOT PUBLISH” comment from an Anonymous at 8 Mar 2014 09:38:00.

    We will never publish a “DO NOT PUBLISH” comment under any circumstances but we think we can say, without breaching any confidentiality (taking into account the spirit of the comment), that in it was, among other things, a link for our analysis....................blah blah, drone drone

The anonymous message wasn't from me, arsewipe.