Translate

Friday, 5 June 2015

Thick as two short ones.

Well, after making a frightful spectacle of herself last week, it seems Textusa was determined to bare her arse in the butcher's window again. All I can say really is  - enjoy!


Cadaver compound

Although the bus driver denied seeing Textusa in his wing mirror, subsequent analysis showed he had driven across three fields to get to her  

1. Introduction

One of the most effective ways to disrupt a topic is by distorting it by using useless truth.
This is the bit where Textusa attributes any correction or mention that she is talking complete shite to a desire to disrupt. She always does. Then she will try to change the subject while she goes and googles something 


When one tries to find out if a vehicle is either a bus or van the debate ending up in a heated discussion about what kind of stone may or not have been caught in the tread of one of its tires that should or not be a specific brand.
This is the bit where she has to acknowledge getting it all wrong, but pretends it didn't matter. A bit like a parent who left their child alone and defenceless but claims it wasn't their fault because someone broke in.


Genuinely discussing the type of stone adds nothing to a discussion about vehicle types. All said about what the stones may be is true, but is an useless truth to the purported debate.

These truths (and they are truths) seek only to disrupt.
See? What did I tell you?  


One allowing one to be engaged in such a debate is to find oneself discovering whether the hypothetical stone is sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous and nothing about finding out what the vehicle is.
In english, s'il vous plait.  


As every subject has thousands of truths around it the disruption is continuously fed very easily. There will always be hairs to be split.
Drone drone.  


To refuse to be engaged in such a useless debate immediately provokes a disciplinary accusation of wanting to duck the question. Disciplinary because in the reprimand there’s always that humiliating “get back here, I haven’t stopped so if you leave you’re a coward.”
Again, she doesn't disappoint..... 


On our last post “Cadaverine” we clearly identified the “vehicle” we wanted to identify by making the following question: did the fact that Eddie the ERVD dog not mark anything on Murat’s property rule it out as a possible safe house to where the body was taken after apartment 5A?“
No, you claimed that the body was moved to the Murat house, then you tried to head off the justifiable criticism that his house had been extensively searched to no avail by claiming that, in essence, it didn't matter. The fact is, your proposition is meaningless. You could just as easily say that the fact the dog didn't alert to the local baker's van does not rule out that her body was transported in that. Or the grocer's bike. Or Mrs Fenn's shopping trolley. There was no evidence her body was ever at Murat's house and you know it 


We said Murat’s property couldn’t be ruled out because the following 4 points:

#1 - If one removes a contaminated object from premises then one removes the contamination that object has with it. Jacques de La Palice wouldn’t have said it better. We used the shelf of closet in apartment 5A to demonstrate. Any possible contaminated object could also have been removed from Murat’s property.
And you were wrong 


#2 - There were three locations marked by the ERVD dog in apartment 5A (living-room, bedroom and backyard) but we’re certain there was a fourth location, location X, where we say body was cleaned and redressed. The fact that this location was not marked by the dog means that there was at least one place in that apartment where the body had been and where no vestiges of its presence had been left. If that could happen in apartment 5A then the same circumstances could have been replicated in Murat’s property;
And you were wrong 


#3 - The back gate of apartment 5A was unmarked by the dog but by the route the body followed, indicated by the 3 marked locations, Gerry when exiting to meet Jez and returning thereafter and when carrying body out of property, opened and closed the gate 6 times. This means that the contamination is not as straightforward as supposed;
And you were wrong 


#4 - There was the very strong likelihood of a vehicle having been used that night to take the body from there to a second safe-house (which we think to have been the water treatment station). We think it was there the body was kept when inside Murat’s property. When it left it would have taken all vestiges with it.
And you were wrong. And also mental.  


None of these 4 points was contradicted in any way.
Of course they were. Insomuch as meaningless, empty claims can be. It's easy to invent ridiculous crap and then say ''prove me wrong'' 


We consider to have proved, without any objections, the point of our post: the absence of Eddie marking does not rule out the possibility of the body having been in Murat’s property on the night of the 3rd.
Proved what, precisely? That any location, anywhere in the world, where a cadaver dog has not alerted could be the location of her body? I hate to break this to you, but that doesn't really narrow it down 


Those opposing us argued around two issues: one was the possibility the water treatment station having been or not used as second safe house after Murat’s property and the other was related to the substance that the dog marked.
Frankly, those ''opposing'' you were merely pointing out that your entire theory was fucking mental, requiring as it did some nameless stooge from the Ocean Club ringing a previously sacked employee at 4am (for the bizarre reason that only they had his number, apparently - don't ask) and asking him if he would mind popping round to Chez Murat and relocating a suspiciously dead bundle for no given reason whatsoever. 

As regards the 'substance' that was marked, that was merely me pointing out that you were, yet again, talking out of your arse. 


Denying that the water treatment station was the second safe house is not denying the existence of a second safe house. We explained in the post why we thought the way we thought.
No, you didn't. Nor have you explained why your fucked-up theory requires a massive game of  ''Pass the blood-stained parcel'' to be undertaken by helpful locals.


The debate about what indeed the dog had marked (we said it was cadaverine) was the opposition paid most attention to and what basically this post is about.
And you were wrong. Again!  


2. Substance v odour

No amount of fragrance could hide the fact that Textusa's tale was fishier than a haddock's whiffy parts.

The opposition’s arguments can be divided into:

- As we stated there was no Volatile Contamination in the first hours and the opposition using as evidence an experiment, which we shall call the carpet square experiment, whereby ERVD dogs marked a contamination “without any direct contact” between corpse and contaminated surface. This, according to them, proved there was indeed a volatile or airborne contamination which meant that we had intentionally misinformed.
That ''Carpet square experiment'' as you dismiss it is one of the most important pieces of research in this field, but do carry on dismissing it  


- What Eddie marked was not cadaverine as we said but a complex compound of various elements, which the opposition called cadaver odour and asserted all we said was again pure misinformation and the whole post should be ignored;
Correct. But the post should be ignored because it's total bollocks, quite aside from the fact that you hadn't a fucking clue what the dog detects 


We cannot see how either invalidates our post in any way.
Your post was already invalid. It merely confirmed the depths of your stupidity 


And IF there was an immediate volatile contamination then what Eddie marked was what he marked and he didn’t mark location X (a place inside apartment 5A which we don't have any idea where it really was only that there was one). 
Eh?  


The other loonies grew tired of Textusa's need to obsessively plan every game of Hide and Seek

About the substance in question, whatever it was, the fact is there was one (we don't know where) unmarked location X meaning the body had been there but no vestiges of the substance were to be found.
Eh? 


Whatever precautions were taken at that location, unwittingly about anything related to the ERVD dog as we said, the same ones could also have been taken at Murat’s.
Que? 


The doctors present in the group would have dissected cadavers in training. Instinct would have made them take precautions, not thinking about dogs, just practicalities
They are taught to dissect them. Not to prevent a cadaver dog alerting, you dingbat.  


We will talk about the substance later. For now, we would like to concentrate on the odour of it.

From the expression “without any direct contact” used in carpet square experiment some have quickly come to the conclusion that it was a volatile contamination or airborne molecules impregnating the surface. From there for it not to be even a substance but a gas was just a quick jump away.
Jesus Christ, it is truly scary how uneducated you are
It IS contamination by volatile molecules 

As for this -

 ''From there for it not to be even a substance but a gas was just a quick jump away.'' 

Well, fuck knows what you were on about there. 

Here is your free chemistry lesson

''Substance'' refers to anything which has mass. It is merely a generic term. It can refer to a gas. It can refer to a solid. It can refer to a liquid. 

Volatile contamination refers to molecules in a gaseous state.

Perhaps you could now go away and decide what you were trying to say in the above passage? 


Tigger, who “can't for the life of me understand why Textusa is taken seriously. Imo [in my opinion] there's little to choose between the misinformation of TM [Team McCann] and Textusa” had this to say:

“This last effort [our post “Cadaverine”]  is a bunch of misinformation. Cadaverine is not an oily substance it's a gas, contact is not necessary for dogs to smel it. Think of it as a perfume or a room spray. Think of a spray from a skunk will not have to touch the items that will absorb the scent such as textiles.”
Tigger was quite right. Tigger is the equivalent of Einstein next to you  


Note to self: next time in a perfume store do remember to ask only for one of those bottles without any liquid, they must be cheaper than the ones that are filled with the stuff.
Right - here is the second part of your chemistry lesson.

Let me ask you a question. What does Vitamin D look like? Any idea?

Well, I'll tell you. In it's pure state, at room temperature, it's a white crystalline solid.

So when we eat it in our food, do we bite down on little white crystals?

No, of course not. It's a fat-soluble molecule, so we consume it dissolved in fats and oils in our diet.

You looked up cadaverine and saw that in it's pure form it's an oily liquid. You then assumed that the body made it like that, and claimed that it made the skin oily, all of which was complete bollocks.

The reason animals like dogs can detect the presence of substances produced during decomposition is because they are gaseous and enter the atmosphere


To be clear, if it involves smell it involves airborne molecules. Only airborne molecules make the nerve endings of a nose tingle.
 Thank you, Professor


But one thing is the scent or odour, another the source of that same scent.

Using the perfume as an example, what we smell is the scent, airborne molecules released by the volatile substance, and the liquid is the source.

Of course gas also smells. It is made up of airborne molecules. But once released into the air, these molecules disperse and their density in the air is so low that it no longer activates the nerve endings of the nose.
Bull fucking shit.

This is your basic problem. a complete lack of understanding. How do you think spray air fresheners  work? They work because they persist for ages in the air. Dogs have way more receptors than us and can detect the presence of olfactory substances at much lower concentrations than humans. 


Could airborne molecules remain in place, literally floating in the air during long periods of time?
Yes.  


Martin Grime says they can when he speaks of the ERVD dog marking near the closet in the parents' bedroom: “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this, is that, in a hot climate, with the apartment being closed, the odour will accumulate in a certain area. Not being here a odour source, be it a physical object that is emitting the odour [an “or something else” is missing in this sentence] any residual odour will accumulate in a certain place, due to the placement of the air to give me an indication by barking. But the source may not be in that corner, could well be in another place in that room, but the air is pushing it into that corner. But there is and I would say that it is a positive result for the things he's trying to find, which will be included in an independent report.”

In a closed apartment the air doesn't circulate, that is true. Only apartment 5A was not closed. After Maddie disappeared the apartment had the presence of many people namely the forensics. They certainly were present in that room.

Also, the apartment was rented afterwards. Which means people did use that room and opened and closed the doors of that closet many time.

The scent survived all the cleaning of the apartment between guests and during their stay.

Apartment 5A does not constitute an apartment being closed. The air circulated enough to dissipate any floating molecules that may have been there, if they were there without an emitting source.
Oh - and suddenly you are agreeing with all the pro camp?  Cobblers. Where do you get off making these grandiose claims? Your claim that any cadaver odour would have dissipated is completely contradicted by the results of the carpet squares study, which I can tell you haven't read, merely scanned a blog about it, otherwise you wouldn't be making that claim 


As these molecules were there, then it means there was an emitting source.
No it absolutely categorically does not 


ERVD dogs react to smell but what that reaction says is that in the area that is being marked there is a source. Somewhere near is the substance, more or less volatile, that is releasing, or emitting the airborne molecules.
No, that is completely and utterly false information. Haven't you done ANY research, woman? Haven't you even read Martin Grime's reports?

I can understand that some non-scientists struggle with the concept that molecules can be present in a gaseous state and that they can remain there for a long time and that a dog can alert to their presence even when there are no liquid or solid remains present, but that is no excuse for being ill informed yet blogging as if you knew what you were talking about, complete with utterly false and misleading information. 


Distilled essence of shite - as used by Textusa
The substance, which we up to now have called cadaverine, is not a gas. To say it is, is to misinform. The picture above, which we published in the post, should have been a clue.
And this is where you win the prize for Fuckwit of the Year

IT IS A GAS WHEN PRODUCED BY A DECOMPOSING CORPSE, you idiot.  

Just like I described earlier using Vitamin D as the example. The body does not synthesize pure, liquid cadaverine. This has been explained to you about ten times 


According to wordnik from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition“Cadaverine is a syrupy, colourless fuming ptomaine C5H14N2, formed by the carboxylation of lysine by bacteria in decaying animal flesh.”

So it is a liquid, but an oily or syrupy liquid. As the synthetically produced version, as illustrated, shows.
And vitamin D is a white crystalline solid. But not when it's part of your cornflakes. Our bodies can make ammonia - another substance produced by decaying tissues - but not in the way it is made in bulk, industrially. We don't secrete gaseous ammonia!

It is truly frightening to realise how little understanding of biological processes you have acquired in your life



3. The substance

We agree with the opposition when it says that what the dog responds to is not cadaverine. We have already said in a comment on our last post that were keeping things to basics, to be intentionally simplistic. Why we did it, we will explain later.
No you didn't. You thought they respond to cadaverine. If your aim was to be 'intentionally simplistic' why did you rant on for pages about the industrial production of the stuff? You even provided two videos. At the very least you should have admitted your ignorance rather than trying to patronise your readers by claiming you were keeping it simple 'so they could understand' 


Martin Grimes says “The odour of cadaver is scientifically explained through volatile organic compounds that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as receptors.”

The substance that is the source of the odour or scent of cadaver, that makes ERVD dogs react is a complex mix of different molecules.
Correct  


It's so complex that no one has been able to identify with precision what exactly it is made of. This a fact that is very important to keep present. 
No it isn't
We would say that its main components are cadaverine and putrescine.
Suddenly the expert, eh?  


Putrescine and cadaverine are very similar as both are diamines. Cadaverine comes from removing the carbolic acid group from the amino acid lysine, whereas putrescine is derived from arginine, which is a different amino acid.
You have no idea what any of those words mean, do you?  


Both putrescine and cadaverine contribute in small parts to the smell of urine and semen.

Both substances are produced by living human beings so we imagine that in this compound there must be other substances resulting from the decomposition of the highly complex machine that the human body is that will enable the dog to differentiate a deceased human source from a live one.
Correct 


Continues Grime “Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot be replicated in laboratory processes.”

In our post “Cadaverine” we saw that cadaverine can be produced artificially. Putrescine can also be produced that way:

Pure stench, as distilled from the Big Round Table (absence of) theory
Textuscine, a foul smelling, and essentially useless liquid
As both cadaverine and putrescine can be artificially made but the compound cannot be replicated this means that the substance that causes the ERVD dog's reaction is much more complex than one made up with just these two substances.
No, it doesn't. Please do not try to make quantum leaps of logic with respect to a subject you know nothing about. Also, stop referring to it as a ''compound''. It is not a compound. If the other molecules could be determined, they too could be synthesized


Martin Grime describes how his dogs were trained. Eddie, the EVRD/cadaver dog was trained “using whole or disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognise all parts of human cadaver. He is not trained for live human odours.”

“EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is closest to humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Occasionally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.”

“The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still-born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scene of a decomposing body not foodstuff.”

Live human odours means that no diapers justify Eddie's markings.

This ensures that the dog disregards bacon sandwich and kebab. He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the USA in association with the FBI.

About pseudo-scents he says “When tested on my dogs, they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.”

He does also say “the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to ‘train’ the dog to distinguish between the two.”

Note that he precedes the above with the following words “The result of a scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that...” and follows it with these “That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.” 

The words of someone who is qualifying what he's saying as he feels he feels he has to say as he hasn't, yet, the 100% assurance that what he truly believes as an experienced dog-trainer is water-tight.
No, he is saying, as would be evident had you not dissected his statement, that although research currently suggests the two scents are so similar they cannot train the dogs to distinguish between them, they may be able to do so in the future. What the fuck gives you the right to claim you know what he was feeling, you arrogant fraud?  


The pigs odour is closest to humans because the constitution of their bodies is almost as complex as ours. We go back to the complexity of the cadaver compound. A complexity such that it is keeping science puzzled to this day but the dog's nose knows what it is.

Saying that the dog's nose confuses this smell with another because the composition of the cadaver compound is still scientifically unknown (it is known that its 2 major components are cadaverine and putrescine) is to say that the apple that hit Newton on the head only fell to the ground because it was confused in which direction to fall because up until that moment science had not yet discovered gravity.
What a load of bollocks. 


The fact that science hasn't kept up to date with a phenomenon doesn't disprove its existence in any way. Nature is much more advanced than science. The decomposition of lysine into cadaverine is nature's doing as also is that wonderful piece of machinery, the dog's nose. 

Unless a decomposing pig was related to ALL locations and items related to the McCanns, the odour detected by Eddie can only have been from a deceased human source. These locations/items being as far as we know the parents' bedroom closet, the living room behind couch, the flowerbed in backyard, pieces of clothing (2) of Kate, a piece of clothing of Maddie, the cuddly cat, the Scenic and the key FOB.
Is that really where you were going with that? Who has suggested there was a decomposing pig, for fuck's sake?  


No amount of rotting sea-bass and diapers justify Eddie's markings on ALL the listed items/locations.

There are progressive changes in a cadaver over periods of time, so to be effective, dogs are trained using cadavers in various stages of decomposition.

Once the body has been removed without contaminating anything else any airborne molecules or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) will eventually dissipate.
Will it, Professor?  And how long does that take then? Done any research?


The fact that there are molecules flying about in a normally ventilated area that can be detected by the dog's nose means there's a source releasing them. The source is where the substance has contaminated surface. It will continuously release airborne molecules.
Absolute bullshit. Dogs have reacted to body transit sites years later.


Martin Grime says attempts to bleach surfaces do not confuse the dogs.

We have seen the scent named, cadaver odour or cadaver scent, but have yet to see the substance named. We shall call it the most obvious and truthful: cadaver compound.
I have named it countless times, but you are too fucking ignorant to take it on board
It is not ''Cadaver Compound'' 

''Compound'' has a specific scientific meaning, so to call it that is incorrect. Call it Cadaver odour or the odour of decomposition 



4. Simplifying

Aha! said Textusa, as the maid arrived with breakfast. 

When determining if a vehicle is a bus or not does one need to go into the detail of the shade of its colour? No, one doesn’t.

The same way we wouldn’t say whether the vehicle was Ferrari red, ruby red, cherry red or candy red but say that it just red, we reduced the cadaver compound to just one of its elements, cadaverine.

We did this to avoid useless discussion.
No you fucking didn't. You have ALWAYS referred to Cadaverine in the singular. You wrote reams about it and posted videos. You went into nonsensical length and depth about an industrial process of no relevance at all.

Fucking liar  


To demonstrate let’s imagine that the reader is discussing what is the simplest cocktail to make. Vodka orange (vodka, orange juice and ice), cuba libre (rum, coca-cola and ice) and gin and tonic (gin, tonic water and ice) come to mind.
There now follows a load of bollocks about making a drink  


One would look and see what were the constraints in both acquiring each of their main ingredients and in putting them inside a glass and quickly come to a conclusion.   

A simple, quick and straightforward process.

But now let’s look at one of those drinks in detail, gin and tonic.

A very simple drink to make. A portion of tonic water to a portion of gin, some ice and that’s that. Three elements, gin, tonic water and water in the form of ice. All very simple, apparently.

But let’s look at what Wikipedia says is a gin and tonic:

“A gin and tonic is a highball cocktail made with gin and tonic water poured over ice. It is usually garnished with a slice or wedge of lime. The amount of gin varies according to taste. Suggested ratios of gin to tonic are 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 2:3.

In some countries, gin and tonic is marketed pre-mixed in single-serving cans. In the United States, most bars "use soda out of a gun that in no way, shape or form resembles quinine water", according to bartender Dale DeGroff. To get a real gin and tonic, DeGroff recommends specifying bottled tonic. Alternatively, one can add tonic syrup to soda water.”

We now no longer have only 3 elements but now a fourth, lime. And it can be a wedge or a slice.

Note that tonic water can be replaced by tonic syrup and soda water if one wishes to maintain integrity or just soda out of a gun if one doesn’t care.

The portions vary for 1:1 to 1:3 with all in between.

Do these details matter? Only if one wants to split hairs.

And one can split hairs indeed. Is the drink still a gin and tonic if one doesn't put ice? Is it really a gin and tonic if uses a gun?

To detail more than needed is to unnecessarily complicate any discussion. Note that one thing remains constant even in the hair-splitting: it's main component, gin, is not a variable but a constant in the equation.

The cadaver compound is composed mainly of cadaverine and putrescine as we have seen. Both are very similar. By dealing with one, one deals with the other to what matters in the debate which was, if one is not detected in 5A then it can also not be in Murat’s property.
Bullshit. You invented an additional location where you claimed the dog should have alerted. And on that basis you claimed it explained why he didn't alert at the Murats. Absolute cobblers  


But the simplification of the compound didn’t make our life easier, on the contrary. By taking out of the compound all other elements we took away all their constraints.

We dealt only with the constraints and specifics of cadaverine leaving out all these related to the other elements.

Note ALL the constraints and specifics of cadaverine are present in the constraints and specifics of the compound.

By simplifying the cadaver compound to one of its most important elements, cadaverine, we made things easier to understand.
This is all absolute nonsense. And it's not a compound  


Is the constitution of the compound important to determine if whatever was not detected in apartment 5A wouldn’t be in Murat’s?
What?  


Only in what pertains to the contamination of the substance and that’s why we detailed cadaverine. It was important for us to have the reader understand its syrupy characteristics. It's a significant constraint in having it contaminating anything.
It does not have syrupy characteristics except in it's pure form, you ignoramus 


By contesting our simplification, in their thirst for our error, what the opposition ended up doing was to highlight how effective and reliable Eddie was in apartment 5A.
No-one ever said Eddie was not reliable. He was, You're not  


And if he was effective and reliable in apartment 5A he was too when marking the Scenic and every single item/location he marked.

For that alone we think gratitude is owed to Insane.
Where have I ever indicated that Eddie's alerts were false? Nowhere. You can park your smear campaign  at the door, retard. 



5. The carpet square experiment

The opposition attacked us fiercely claiming that we were talking nonsense because when we said that Maddie, in our opinion, wasn’t in 5A long enough for VOC to develop to a great extent.
A claim you make despite having no evidence and no knowledge  


No, they said with vehemence, there IS immediate airborne contamination. The carpet-square experiment proves it without a shadow of a doubt!
Oh yes? Where is that then?  


Note, we didn’t (and don’t) deny volatile or airborne contamination during the later stages of decomposition. What we said, and are repeating today, is that in the first hours not enough cadaver compound (now we can refer it like that) was developed to cause an airborne contamination.
You really are a piece of work. The Carpet Squares study proves the exact opposite. And frankly being lectured on it by someone who hasn't a fucking clue really is hilarious.  


Let’s transcribe here what this experiment was:

“Cadaver dogs—A study on detection of contaminated carpet squares

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.

Material and methods

Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI < 3 h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).

Results

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100), specificity (91–100), and having a positive predictive value (90–100), negative predictive value (90–100) as well as accuracy (92–100).

Reference:

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.

Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.”


6. Airborne contamination, is it or is it not?

This is what Insane had to say about the carpet square experiment related to our post.

“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.”

Let’s see how the carpet square experiment was carried out.

It is quite detailed in the book “What the Dog Knows: Scent, Science, and the Amazing Ways Dogs Perceive the World” by Cat Warren. The description of the experiment is here.

It's summed up in the blog “Dog Law Reporter”:

So you haven't read the paper, then? Despite the fact that I sent you a link to it?  


“A German research team was asked by the Hamburg Police Department how long a dead body would have to have contact with a mattress or a carpet for a cadaver dog to detect that a body had been on the item. This question arose from a real case involving a married couple that went sailing in their yacht. The husband returned alone and reported his wife missing, but the police soon regarded him as a suspect. They brought a cadaver dog onto the yacht, which alerted in the cabin. Although this would not have been enough for a conviction, the researchers argued that it justified further investigation. They designed an experiment to answer the question of the Hamburg police. Two men who had died only two hours before were wrapped in cotton blankets. Carpet squares were placed under their backs, touching the blankets but not the bodies. The squares were left under the men for either two minutes or ten minutes, then removed and placed in sealed containers. Carpet squares were also placed under living men, also without direct contact. The carpet squares were then used in a test of the skills of three cadaver dogs of the Hamburg Police Department, two Malinois and a herding dog. One of the Malinois had five years of experience, while the other two had about a year and a half. They were tested the day of the exposure, but up to 35 days later for the two-minute exposed squares and 65 days for the ten-minute exposed squares. The dogs sometimes failed to identify the two-minute squares, but two of the dogs were perfect on the ten-minute squares. Collectively the dogs alerted accurately 86% of the time on the two-minute squares and 98% of the time on the ten-minute exposed squares (with only one dog have any incorrect alerts). The message to the criminals apparently is, if you’re going to move a body, do it quickly or the dog will find you out.” 

The carpet squares experiment carried out in 2008 by Oesterhelweg and colleagues was to determine how long material needed to be exposed to a cadaver, in order for ERVD dogs to detect the odour and with what degree of accuracy.

The bodies of 2 men (men aged 60 and 63 who had collapsed on the streets in Hamburg) who had donated their bodies for medical research purposes, were used.

The cadavers were used between 2 and 3 hours after death.
No, they had post mortem intervals of 110 minutes and 120 minutes 
They were wrapped in cotton blankets in an outside courtyard of a hospital.
They were in a tent in the courtyard. This was to prevent any odour contamination from the building  


Carpet squares were placed under the back of the cadaver, so they touched the blanket and not the body. The squares were left for time intervals of 2 minutes and 10 minutes. They were then removed and placed in sealed bags.
No, they were placed into sealed jars. 
A control group of samples were used on living men, where there was also no direct contact with the body.

3 dogs were used, with varying experience.

Up to 35 days later, the 2 minute exposed squares were used. Dogs were 86% correct.

Up to 65 days later, the 10 minute squares were used. Dogs were 98% correct. 2 of the dogs were completely accurate on these squares. Accurate in marking the contaminated squares and ignoring the uncontaminated ones.

Unfortunately for Insane, when one says “without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse”(carpet square experiment) one is NOT saying the “transmission of cadaver odour was airborne” (his words). It means only that there was no direct contact between contaminated surface and the body who contaminated it.
Unfortunately for Textusa, the Transmission IS airborne. There was no physical contact between the cadaver and the scent collection media - the tiles. The bodies were dry, with an intact skin. There was only one puncture wound, from an IV, and that was covered with a dressing prior to the study. The maximum time of exposure to the environment was 10 minutes; far too brief for any breakdown of the skin. Therefore the only means of contamination of the carpet tiles was airborne.

If Textusa believes she has found a different one, there is a Nobel prize in it as she will have also discovered an additional state of matter. 


Ikea were still perfecting their ''How to wrap a corpse'' instructional video 

The experiment was about secondary contamination and NOT about an airborne one.
Er  - no it wasn't


Martin Grime says this about odour transferring from a cadaver to clothing which was then in contact with other clothing.

“There is always the possibility of contamination of odours by transfer” and “Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios” and “The dog has been trained to identify cadaver scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to carpet or upholstery in motor vehicles.”

And about how long a cadaver has to be in contact with a surface or object for the odour to be detected he’s quite clear: “Cross-contamination is immediate.”
All of which is quite correct. However, that does not alter the fact that this study design involved airborne contamination



7. Implications to previous post “Cadaverine

In a result which baffled science, Textusa appeared to veer in a number of directions before disappearing up her own arse
Of all things we said only one is put in question and that is what we said we thought about the fact the gate was not contaminated.

To remind readers, we said the gate was not marked for contamination when it should have been. And we maintain that it should have. Gerry, in our opinion, went through that gate 3 times.

In our “Cadaverine” post we said that we thought the lack of contamination was due to the fact that the clothing would be sufficient to block contaminating the hands that were holding the corpse.
Oh no, you were quite adamant. You lectured your minions on the subject, even when they raised objections. You said they would not have been contaminated because of the presence of clothing. Now you have thrown the gears into full reverse in your desperate desire to prove a point. 


The carpet square experiment clearly proves us wrong. The blankets in the experiment clearly absorbed the cadaver compound in enough quantity to cause the contamination of the carpet squares, a secondary contamination.
See, you still don't get it, do you?

What is this ''Compound'' you think they ''absorbed''? How did they ''absorb'' it ? Was it liquid? No. The contamination was airborne. If you read the abstract they describe contaminating with the ''scent''. That is entirely different to contaminating with the cellular or liquefied remains of a decomposed body. If you just think about it, you will understand. 


In all other situations, the contamination is much more extensive than we said it was. We said we thought only the direct contact of skin to surface would contaminate. The square- contamination proves otherwise. It would have been the whole body, even clothed, that would contaminate. Primary contamination in its direct contact (skin – surface) and secondary in its not direct contact (skin – cloth – surface).
You still don't get it, you are too thick

The whole point, Textusa, you lamebrain, is that airborne contamination could account for all the alerts.  


Why is the gate not contaminated we don’t know.
Oh - but you knew last week. You slapped people down for questioning you  


Note that we could be right. The clothes of a recently washed and freshly clothed body could be enough to block the contamination as we don’t know under what exact circumstances the 2 cadavers in the carpet square experiment were wrapped with cotton blankets.
Yes, we do. And this is how I knew you hadn't read the paper. If you had, you would know.  


It seems the hospital did not carry out the usual procedures for washing the bodies before they were used, presumably so that no other substances could affect the results. If so, we also presume that any voids, or bodily leakages from the bodies could have permeated the blankets explaining the rapid rate in which, apparently, they absorbed the cadaver compound.
No, had you read the paper you would know that the bodies were clean, dry, with no ''leakages''

Yet again you are trying to impose your hypothesis over and above the conclusions of the highly qualified authors of the paper. There was no ''liquid'', Textusa.

So how does contamination occur? I'll give you three guesses.....


It could be that Jane Tanner instead of being inside apartment, as we think was, be at the backyard as a lookout and it was her who handled the gate.

It could be that Gerry wore surgical gloves out of professional instinct when handling the body and  taking them off when coming to “meet” Jez.

It could be that because we’re talking about a tertiary, or third-round, contamination (skin – cloth- hand – gate), there might not have been one.

It could be many things, all speculation. One thing is certain and that the gate was not marked so there was no vestiges of cadaver compound there.
God almighty, you really are a bullshitter 


Note that in our post “Cadaverine” we didn’t explain why location X was not contaminated. We said we didn’t know.

But the carpet square experiment also brings implications to this. It shows that the corpse was not handled with care, but with extra care. Most probably to protect against possible and likely bodily leakages that happen from a recently deceased body which doctors would be familiar with from training so, in our opinion, took extra care to avoid any sort of fluid contamination.

By blocking the contamination of those fluids, cadaver compound contamination was also blocked.
How long do you think it takes before liquification occurs? Jesus Christ, you desperately need an education.  



8. Conclusion

No question about it, Insane is absolutely spot-on about the carpet square experiment: This is a paper of central and vital importance in this case.”

It validates the fascinating olfactory capabilities of a dog's nose. And is putting them in use to fight crime.

As we have said, Insane confirms Eddie’s reliability. No question about it, cadaver compound was marked in 3 separate locations in apartment 5A:

The staff were getting wise to Textusa, and had drawn up a map of her favourite toileting spots

And by bringing the carpet-square experiment into the equation with the conviction he does, he helps us show what an incompetent doctor Kate McCann is.

She says on page 253 of her book that cadaverine and putresence (sic) odour lasts no longer than 30 days. Carpet squares experiment proves otherwise.
That doesn't make her an incompetent doctor. Just a liar.  


But for us personally, is that Insane’s response helps clarify a big mystery.

Probably readers won’t know but Insane believes Maddie is dead:
Why is this a surprise? I have always believed she is dead 


Admitting defeat,Textusa decides to seek wisdom elsewhere.

“Not Textusa 21 January 2015 at 13:29

Thanks

I don't discuss theories on here as a rule. I think she's dead. I think she has been dead since 3 May 2007. I do not think there was a massive conspiracy. I do not think it will ever be solved unless someone talks or her remains are found.”

Note, he THINKS she’s dead (guesswork) and he THINKS she has been dead since May 3 (guesswork again).
Nope. Opinion, based on a scientific analysis. Something you shouldn't attempt.  


He thinks Maddie is dead and the mainstream media, governments and police forces (except PJ in 2007/2008) have refused to say the “D” word about Maddie. SY has even the remit to investigate an abduction.
Nothing to do with me what the police forces say - that's their business  


And according to Insane “unless someone talks” we will never know what happened, meaning the dark secret is held by more than a person. A collective withholding of information.
Nope, it could be one person. I don't know, and neither do you.  


If Insane thinks Maddie is dead then he also thinks the fund is fraudulent.
Not necessarily. Depends on who knows she is dead.  


It seems to us that Insane there is a conspiracy by his own definition (not ours), and one that involves those who know first hand what the dark secret is, the mainstream media, governments and police forces. Insane is a “conspiracy loon” according to himself.

Nope, I have said nothing about the MSM or the governments and police. If you remember I said I did not believe there was a massive conspiracy 


As the reader knows we believe that we are before a cover-up of massive proportions. 
And you are wrong. Carry on..... 


We have only found about his belief this year. And it has puzzled us why on earth would Insane believe Maddie dead.
Isn't it obvious?  


He refutes all evidence about DNA and blood inside apartment 5A. When it comes to either of those subjects, even when 2 +2 = 4 he stamps his foot, crosses his arms and says it is 7 just because he says it is, then puffs up cheeks and holds his breath until he turns purple.
No, the issue is that you talk absolute bollocks about the DNA results and misinterpret them constantly, just as you have done with the dog alerts.


So when he came in guns blazing to glorify Eddie’s performance (something that he and we agree on) we found it completely out of character until we realised that it must be cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound, which makes him think Maddie is dead.

No such thing as ''Cadaver Compound'' Please don't use it again.  It is quite simple. No confirmed sightings of a missing child in 8 years. Statistics which predict a high probability that she is dead, Cadaver dog alerts at the last place she was seen while not proof are certainly indicative.


If not blood and not DNA, it can only be cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound. Whatever else allows him to think that Maddie is dead?
Have you been in a cave for the last 8 years?  


Because out of the 3, blood, DNA and cadaver compound, the last is the most condemning. The first 2 can be “explained” with fairytale rubbish but cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound, can't.
Fairytale rubbish? Hardly an appropriate way to describe John Lowe  


It's unequivocal presence means there was a cadaver in that apartment in at least 3 very peculiar locations and there's only a certain amount of diapers and rotting sea-bass one can bring to the table.
No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. The locations are very much secondary. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.  


Meanwhile, we are patiently still waiting for a fully developed theory from him.
Why? Just because you seem to be unable to exist without a retarded theory to hang your hat on, that doesn't mean everyone is like you. I'm a scientist. There is insufficient data for me to formulate an hypothesis and if I had one I certainly wouldn't be sharing it with you and your vegetative assortment of fans  


We would like to clarify that we're not making any direct attack on Insane.
Yes you are  
We're defending our position against those who contest our content. Unfortunately “those” are practically Insane.
So all your talk about how you want to be challenged is just bullshit, then? Textusa, most of your readers are so dense, light bends around them. They don't challenge your position because they don't read your posts. No wonder, really. They would turn a nun to hard liquor.  

I challenge your content because most of it is horseshit


Is this character the only one criticising us? Far from it. Many are those who have taken a dislike to us and do voice it.
Hence why you have so many unpublished posts  


We will ignore those that resort only to insult. The criticism from the others is either only about presentation and style or by the sole use of  the “I-argument”.
Maybe you should try not insulting them. Or assuming they are me  


Examples of the “I-argument”: “I wouldn't take my kids if I was going swinging so it isn't swinging”, “I wouldn't take my kids' grandmother if I was going swinging so it isn't swinging”, “I think swinging is perfectly accepted so swinging is accepted by all”, “I don't think swinging justifies such a cover-up, so the cover-up is not about swinging”, “I wouldn't mind if my parish, my local supermarket and the teachers of my kids' school would know I was swinger so no one does either”, “I don't think so many could be involved, so they aren't”, etc.
They are perfectly valid comments. You just cannot tolerate people disagreeing with you because of your massive ego and megalomania. You arrogantly dismiss their comments when you have no evidence of swinging AT ALL


And many other similar statements that we dealt with in our post “Swinging FMS” (FMS stands for Frequently Made Statements).
Oh do fuck off with these acronyms 


They forget that this is not about them but about what a small group of people, larger than the T9, thought what the consequences could be if they called authorities and owned up to what really had happened: a child had died by accident, killed by one of them.
Or in other words, your theory. Which you will not allow to be challenged 


It's not about judging if they thought right or if they thought wrong but simply about what went through their minds those minutes under enormous pressure in which the unreasonable is exaggerated and the reasonable diminished and made them decide to risk the simulation of an abduction.
Again - your theory. You have no evidence for any of it so don't be too surprised if people you dismiss for not agreeing with you think you are an utter twat  


And once the lie began its 1,000 mile journey then it stopped being about that decision and became about the lie. Until now and continuing.   
Your lie, Textusa. Your lie......  


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.