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.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email