Saturday, 27 January 2018

Barking Mad.

Well, good evening all.

Generally I can't be arsed replying to the Queen of the Loonies any more. However, I can't let her latest pile of ordure go unchallenged, so here is it. As usual, my comments are in red.

I may well cut her post short, simply because it is absurdly long beyond all reason and because she has copied a scientific paper in its entirety, which is a breach of copyright.

See you on the other side 

The reliability of the cadaver dogs

Textusa was pleased with her portrait photos, although none of them really captured her drool, which was a shame 

1. Introduction

We could start this post with saying that Insane is a sore loser. Or start by saying that he has been very helpful in finding the truth again just because he’s a sore loser.
Or you could start with a disclaimer that you are a fucking idiot; that might be better  

We won’t do that as when writing this post we are expecting new readers as a result of Gemma O’Doherty’s article, which at the time of writing this, we know nothing about its real content yet.
Why would her article bring you new readers? Hoping to piggyback, are you?  

However, judging by the way Gemma has publicised her article it leaves us with optimism, as all indicates that she’ll make a direct link between the McCanns and Maddie’s death.

That link, hopefully, will finally see the light of day in a public media outlet.

So, this said, and transporting ourselves in time, we would like to point out to readers who are arriving here for the first time after Gemma has published her article that these words you are now reading were written without us knowing whether we are to praise or to criticise her, and in case we feel we should praise her, we don’t know up to what point we agree with what she has said.
Ah - so you have already decided. If she agrees with you, you'll be praising her, if not you'll be criticising her. Well, I think it is safe to say that she won't be concluding that they were all there on a swinging holiday and there were no Tapas dinners because of a lack of a big round table, so you might as well put the boot in now 

In case she doesn’t subscribe to our theory, which seems likely, we assume our share of the blame as she did ask on Facebook for those willing to help to contact her directly and privately and we haven’t done that although we are certain others have.
You wouldn't dare 

We trust in truth and its wholesomeness.

If a little bit of the truth, like the direct link between the McCanns and Maddie’s death, is allowed to see the light of day, then we trust it will flourish wholly.

We, on our part for many years have nourished the soil the best we could for when that day happens.

We hope that the title of this post will instigate new readers to continue reading the post, and after having done that, explore the blog and its contents.
Yadda yadda  

To our usual readers, prepare yourselves for a long but worthwhile post.
Long, yes. Worthwhile, no.  

2. Insane/Not Textusa/Walkercan1000

To newcomers to the case, we feel we should explain who this Insane character is. He’s a professional pro-McCann. He uses multiple personas but the 2 main ones that we have to be aware of is ‘Not Textusa’ and ‘Walkercan1000’.
Okay, let's start with this.

1. Textusa attached the name ''Insane'' to me after I referred to the content of a post as being just that. Insane. She decided it was a signature. She's not very bright.

2. I am not, nor have I ever been, pro-McCann. I hold the McCanns entirely responsible for what happened to their daughter. Textusa's problem is that I have debunked each and every one of her lunatic theories, therefore in her embarrassment, she lashes out with the accusation. But then, she IS an idiot, so what can you expect?

3. I am not, nor have I ever been, Michael Walker. Genius Textusa started making this accusation a few months ago in her page comments, presumably based on us using the same word, or having the same number of commas in a paragraph - who knows? Remember, this is the woman who decided no table existed which could accommodate 10 people.

4. I do not have and have never had, a twitter presence. I am of course aware of the McCann hashtag but have never used it or been a part of the discussion. Textusa also knows this, but her innate dishonesty comes again into play. 

Now read on........

The first is a blogger and the latter a tweeter who identifies himself as Michael Walker.

‘Insane’ is a nickname he gave himself in a comment he submitted a long time ago to this blog, long before Not Textusa and Walkercan1000 existed and which we have used since then to identify this individual with invented multiple personalities.

Even in the ‘multiple personalities’ department he’s a failure, because once you read him and under whatever persona he’s faking to be at that moment his personality is unique and not pleasant, to say the least, and he ends up inevitably revealing himself.
Well, that's all you need to know about Textusa's powers of detection!
As aside here - it is important to know that Textusa only survives because most of her hangers-on swallow her ludicrous bullshit completely unchallenged. Mostly this is because they are not very bright, occasionally it's because they have obvious and deeply ingrained personality disorders

We usually censor his swearing, but on this particular post we will leave his comments untouched so that the new readers can have a sense of the kind of individual we are dealing with.

This post has then 2 objectives.

The first to show very clearly how reliable are the EVRD dogs, most commonly known as cadaver dogs.
EVRD are reliable. I have never claimed anything but. The only issue was Textusa's claim that they NEVER return a false positive, which is a palpably false claim, along with most of her claims. The other one she brought up - again - is that of supposed "blood spatters" in the apartment.

In any crime scene, anything which looks like it has the visual potential to be a blood spot will be treated as such and swabbed for analysis. However, not one of these marks gave a positive result for blood despite being subjected to three different tests. 

Textusa might not like it, it might fall foul of her narrative, but those are the facts.

The second to allow a glimpse of the kind of people that those of us trying to find the truth have opposing us, known in the Maddie world as ‘pro-McCanns’, people who fiercely defend the hoax beyond any reason, shame or decency.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is a pro-McCann, Textusa; they are just people with brains.

For example, one of them, Nigel Nessling, was last November convicted of paedophilia.
He was indeed. A horrible little man and a born fantasist, like yourself. Whose name you have brought into the discussion in an attempt to discredit me, which is hilarious given the battles I had with said person over the years 

However, at the beginning of the post we said Insane has proven to be useful in finding the truth. He has. Him being one of the unreasonable, shameless and indecent people, doesn’t mean he can’t be of use.
You know what is shameless, Textusa?
Perpetuating a disproven myth and manipulating the weak-minded, as you do and have been doing for years 

For example, without his specific indication, we wouldn’t have found out that the Ocean Club booking sheets had been tampered with, proving without a shred of doubt the involvement of the Ocean Club resort in the obstruction of justice.
No, they hadn't been tampered with, you festering loon 

The number of people listed doesn’t add up, which can only mean that names were deleted. People who were present in Luz that week and didn’t wish for that to be known.

This participation in the hoax by the management of the Ocean Club shows new readers that the hoax goes far wider than a mere group of 9 people, known as the Tapas 9, on that resort.
Ah yes - your insane theory that all the guests were 'in on it', and all the staff, and the police, and the governments, and the Vatican........

We wouldn’t have known all this if it wasn’t for Insane.
I have never suggested anything of the sort - all your own doing, my mentally-deranged friend.  

And now, very recently, he has again provided a great service to the truth: by proving how reliable, and helpful in forensics, the EVRD dogs are.
Once again, never suggested otherwise, quite the opposite. I was merely debunking your claim that they never deliver a false positive  

He does this when he came on to the blog to defend an “Anonymous” who had come to discredit the EVRD dogs with an absolutely ridiculous article trying to show how unreliable these dogs were supposed to be according to its author(s). We will transcribe entirely the dialogue we had in this blog later in the post.

The irony is that Insane as Not Textusa who is supposed to believe wholehearted and unquestionably – even to the point of being ridiculous in this belief – in the EVRD dog, Eddie.
If you could try to get away from the preposterous language for a moment, that would help.

He supposedly worships the ground on which Eddie walks but he doesn’t believe in Keela, the blood dog, as he’s adamantly against blood being found in the living-room of apartment 5A (a disbelief that Not Textusa shares with Walkercan1000).
Nope, that is not what I have either said or believe

Let's try explaining again for the hard of thinking.

Not one swab returned a positive test for blood. In most cases, the amount of DNA was so small it had to be analysed via LCN-DNA techniques, which cannot locate the origin of a sample. The ''blood spatters'' did not test positive for blood.

Therefore, nothing which could be identified as blood, even using the most sensitive assays, was found in the apartment. Claiming that there was is ridiculous - the results are quite clear in the lab reports

The dog alerting does not change a negative result into a positive result. But Textusa doesn't understand this, because she is stupid. 

This corner was signalled by this dog and we are still waiting for him to tell us what he does think Keelasignals.
Keela was trained to give a positive alert to the presence of blood 

It seems to us that one cannot trust the nose of one dog and not the nose of another but apparently Insane is able to do that.
Nope. You just don't have the intelligence to discern the difference, dear.  

Let me try again.
These dogs are very reliable. They have been shown, in controlled studies, to have very high levels of accuracy and specificity.

However, false positives do happen. And that was what you were picked up on; you claimed that they never give false positives, and that was either a lie or ignorance. How does telling a lie help to forward your agenda? You basically rely on your readers not knowing the difference

He trusts the nose of Eddie to the point of believing that Eddie was able to have picked up airborne molecules of cadaver scent that inexplicably wafted into the apartment and that with time accumulated in the corner of the living room and in the corner of the bedroom closet and lingered there from May 3 to the end of July, like we showed in our post “Playful molecules”.

Whilst wearing the Not Textusa clothes, Eddie, the EVRD dog is for Insane that good, that reliable!
There seems very little point explaining this again to Textusa, she is clearly too thick to grasp it, but it is quite simple - the substance causing the alert may not be present and the dog alerts to the residual scent. The dogs do occasional return a false positive alert. And that is about all you need to know 

Do keep that in mind, because, dear oh dear, Insane has added another foot to that numerous collection he already has in his mouth.

3. The ERVD dogs reliability ridiculous article ‘debate’

It all started with a comment we published, supposedly by an Anonymous.

After having published it, we regretted having done so because we saw it was about to bring over to the blog the already exhausted debate on whether the EVRD dogs were or not reliable, when everyone knows they are. Only Gerry McCann and Walkercan1000 say they aren’t.

Little did we know that by deleting this comment, and thanks to Insane it must be again emphasised, it would prove to be so useful in showing with unquestionable clarity the reliability of the EVRD dogs and as a bonus, answer many questions people may have on the subject.

We transcribe how it all happened in the comment and replies to it we made in our last post “Gemma O’Doherty”:

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:36:00

We have deleted a comment. As we have said the in following reply to Anne Guedes who also submitted reply to that comment which we also didn’t publish:

Textusa20 Jan 2018, 13:07:00 
Anne Guedes,
We have deleted the comment form Anonymous at 20 Jan 2018, 12:23:00 and we're not publishing your reply to him/her at 20 Jan 2018, 12:55:00 because we don't want to go into a debate on whether the dogs are reliable or not.
We all know they are. Only disgusting people covering-up for the death of a 3 yr old try to create doubt over that out of self-interest.”

We now have reason to publish the deleted comment. It was this one from our pet-stalker Insane, now under the guise of an anonymous:
Well, it wasn't actually. But I'm hardly surprised, considering your inability to tell me apart from some rampant pro-McCann 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
"As we have said repeatedly, the dogs to not give false positives."
On what basis are you making that claim?
(You're wrong, incidentally, but you have stated it as fact several times) 
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Jan 2018, 12:23:00

The reason we are now publishing this deleted comment is because, very out of character for Insane, he has provided in a new comment a link with which we suppose he intends to make a basis to his claim reflected is his words “You're wrong [about dogs not giving false positives], incidentally”:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
"As we have said repeatedly, the dogs to not give false positives"
I asked where you got this from, but you deleted my comment.
Your claim is untrue. I assume that's why you deleted my comment, which makes you a dishonest coward, incapable of backing up a claim
For the record: 
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Jan 2018, 20:18:00
So let's see if I have got this right - you made a claim that the dogs do not give false positive alerts, an anonymous poster asked you for the basis on which you made that claim, and rather than answer, you deleted the comment?

How brave! How robust! Why didn't you just answer it?

Is it because the truth is that there is no basis for you to make the claim?

Since his blog has blundered away together with his Not Textusa persona and also because his Twitter presence has deflated – most likely because of the upcoming Gemma O’Doherty article which is making him show evident signs of worry – to a pitiful parroting of copying and pasting, we guess he now has a bundle of time on his hands and he has find some way to try and distract his worries away.

So, Insane went and researched the internet. That place where one can always find sites where it’s stated with absolute certainty that black is white and alongside other sides that guarantee without doubt that white is black. So, naturally he found a site discrediting the EVRD dogs AKA Cadaver dog.

Please note we are not devaluating the internet as fortunately the vast majority of sites are reliable and a very useful source of information. Just saying that if one wants to find what one wants to find, one will end up finding it.

So, like a 2 yr old toddler showing his parents how successful he was being with his potty training, Insane submitted the link above, all proud of himself.
Nope, not me. And I'm not going to comment on an article I haven't read, other than to say if it states that false positive alerts can occur, it is correct. 

So I'm going to skip this next section of Textusa Temper Tantrum and see you on the other side.

The site is not exactly a scientific one. In fact, in its banner it says “Death/Scent – Exploring the weird & wonderful world of fragrance & funerals”.

And in it Insane found an article that disses the cadaver dogs. It says things like “When cadaver dogs were first scientifically evaluated in the 90s their success rate in one study was only 57%, that is just a hair above chance” and “Improvements in training helped cut down on handler-induced false positives, where the dog gave a positive reading because its handler unconsciously gave the dog cues that they thought the location was right.”

And even suggests that the dogs are so unreliable that modern technology is bound to replace them in the future.

In fact, before we pick on a few things on this article, it’s intent it’s very clear: dogs bad, tech good.

That, basically encapsulates the reason why there is an article somewhere in the plethora of articles in the internet, which Insane was able to find.

We will follow with some pearls from this article, with which, Insane, once again, has made an arse of himself.

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:36:00

Reply #1

We will start with this phrase:

“Sometimes dogs indicate the scent of human remains when none are there”

First, in which circumstances did the dogs alert to human remains where there were none? Do note that, like Insane so often does, the article just says it’s so. It doesn’t provide any basis to this claim.

How is it possible for it to know where human remains are NOT present? We see only one way: baiting.

Bait the dog with another substance and he signal it. So, indeed a false positive… or is it?

When can this baiting happen? In training.

To Insane, so there’s no doubt what we mean by training: 

That stage the animal has to undergo before he’s certified to execute the task for which he was trained for.

Means that if a dog provides a false positive DURING TRAINING, he’s responding to other stimuli that he has wrongly associated his reaction to others than those intended.

A dog does not cheat. A dog reacts to a stimulus. The error is in the training, not in the dog.

And there are dogs that have a nature that makes it impossible to be trained. Nothing wrong with their noses but with a personality inadaptability to what is required from the animal.

If a dog is not deemed reliable during training he obviously is not certified.

To illustrate this, let’s use a quote from the article “While anecdotal evidence shows dogs finding bodies buried under meters of soil, concrete, and even under water…”

Let’s place this unreliability alleged by Insane not on a crime scene but on a humanitarian one. An earthquake for example. That would mean a dog signalling a corpse under rubble, efforts being made, an expenditure of human, material and time resources, to remove that rubble to find nothing.

Would that hypothesis be remotely acceptable? No. Insane knows that, he just pretends he doesn’t.”

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:37:00

Reply #2

From Insane’s submitted link:

“...or they [the dogs] send the search party off track due to the scent of a dead rabbit in the woods”

Really, dead rabbits? Where and what circumstances, one should ask if one really wants makes the effort to overlook how falsely biased commercially this article is, and what a fool of themselves is making whoever wrote this crap. It doesn’t say, just says it and one is supposed to swallow it as truth, from an article designed to discredit cadaver dogs in favour of recent technology that will eventually replace them or as the article states very clearly, “fine-tuning the instrument used to train cadaver dogs, which might one day replace them altogether”

And this from the same article that says “What they found was that the closest animal analogue to human decomposition was the pig, not chicken. 8 compounds (ethyl propionate, propyl propionate, propyl butyrate, ethyl pentanoate, pyridine, diethyl disulfide, methyl(methylthio)ethyl disulfide and 3-methylthio-1-propanol) were distinctive among human and pig remains and not present in other animal remains”.

Trained on pig and the dogs find rabbit says this incredibly NOT reliable article. We refer Insane to our reply above.”

Textusa21 Jan 2018, 23:38:00

Reply #3

Again from Insane’s submitted article:
I didn't submit it 

“...likewise, trainers have tried improving accuracy by using human analogues like chicken carcases or isolates of cadaverine and putrescine (you might remember them from our indole post). No one asked, however, does rotting chicken smell like human decomposition? Any animal tissue produces cadaverine and putrescine, so do tools like this really help?”

EVRD dog trainers are portrayed to be really, really stupid.

As we saw before, the article, not us, says that it has been determined that pig and human share 8 compounds differently from all other animals but yet the trainers insist on using “chicken carcases or isolates of cadaverine and putrescine”.

And all, apparently, to see them end up finding rabbits???

Note how the article tries to scrap any and all importance that dogs may have with the final words of the paragraph “so do tools like this really help?”

Don’t these words just sound like music to Insane? They do. Unfortunately for him, they are as ridiculous as he is.”

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:39:00

Reply #4

Again from the same article:

“Decomposition, however, changes with time, weather, and the state of the body upon death. Unlike drugs or explosives, we are asking cadaver dogs to find one particular decomposing thing in a big old world full of decomposing things.”

Decomposition is decomposition. It’s a chemical process of enzyme transformation. It does not depend on any of the things above. The only one that may affect its speed is temperature. Note, it affects the speed of the process, not the process itself.

Note, the words above are so stupid that they contradict the entire objective of the article: promote the supposed technological gadgets.

If they were to be true, it would mean that a body had to be found, then determine the time of death, the weather from that moment until the moment the body was found, realise the state of the body at the moment it was found, so that these parameters can be introduced into the machine so it could find the body that has just been found.

The operator of such machine should be careful when introducing the data, allow for the time he intended to find the body, in terms of weather and state of the body because what is now is not what will be 2 hours later, or at any time in the future. The only constant is the time of death, once determined upon finding the body to be found.

Only evil and ignorant people like us cannot follow such crystal-clear logic.

Note how the paragraph disses the dogs, again.

Textusa 21 Jan 2018, 23:39:00

Final reply

We won’t waste any more time.

This article offers absolutely no credibility. It’s not even specious because it doesn’t limit itself to twist truthful data but invents lies such as dogs sending search parties after rabbits.

It is filled with scientific jargon but it’s just like mouthwash that doesn’t cure bad breath, and we would ask Insane to turn his face away, and publish what he has to say either in his blog (sorry, forgot he can’t as his Not Textusa persona defends the dogs) or on his Twitter account.

Insane, by the way, we find you repulsively disgusting not because you try to discredit what is impossible to discredit which is nature, in this instance in the form of the noses of dogs.

We find you repugnant because of the disrespect shown to the death of Madeleine Beth McCann by your incessant dedication in the cover-up of her death.”
Well, that was fun. I feel sorry for the poor sod who posted it. All they asked, you recall, was on what basis she made the claim that these dogs do not give false positives. It looks to me as if Textusa was doing her utmost to deflect the question  

Textusa 22 Jan 2018, 11:06:00

Apologies, but just an annex to the replies.

Above we have just said "... either in his blog (sorry, forgot he can’t as his Not Textusa persona defends the dogs)" and that is wrong.

He only trusts Eddie.

He doesn't trust Keela, the blood sniffing dog.

We are still waiting from him to tell us what does he think Keela signalled in apartment 5A.”

This was the state of things when Insane made his entrance on stage.

4. Not Textusa retirement and resurgence

Here, it’s very important to establish what Insane considers important and what he doesn’t.

Insane kept his blog exclusively against us up until Feb 5, 2016. Almost 2 years ago. He responded to our post of that same day “A Triumph of Tycoons”.

He then went on another blog to try to pass the Not Textusa persona as a serious and respectful individual so that in doing so he could discredit us there.
Have you been stalking me, Textusa? What business of yours is it where I choose to post? 

But as we said, no matter how much he pretends to be someone else, his character surfaces and soon threw the toys out of the pram and left that blog and when doing it, did the very adult thing of deleting all his comments there.
I did indeed delete my comments from a blog I did not wish to be associated with. And your problem is?  

His following few posts are just resentment about having left that blog.

We published our post “Third option” on March 11, 2016.

On that same day he was challenged on his blog to respond to this post which he agreed to do:

Kee Cee 11 March 2016 at 12:17
Waky waky Not-T......
A real psycho-analysis of yourself..... on the Luna-site.....
looking forward for your 'breakdown'

Not Textusa 11 March 2016 at 14:16
Yep, seen it. It'll have to wait a day or so, I'm kind of busy. Still, it shouldn't take too long, she's off her head as usual :-)”

He agreed to but never found the time to.

Very busy. So busy that all he had to time to do was to create half a dozen blogs attacking other characters (probably in an effort to discredit us by establishing a parallel between us and them) but apparently didn’t seem to find any to acquiesce to Kee Cee’s request to which he had agreed.
No dear - it was because they to had earned their right to be ridiculed. Fair's fair - why should you be the only recipient.

And actually, your blogs had become so boringly repetitive, there was little point bothering with them

He last posted on his blog on May 22 2016, to announce the opening of another of his useless blogs, which we believe didn’t even happen.

Note that between February and May 2016, when he ‘abandoned’ us, although he didn’t find time to respond to our “Third Option”, he found time to dedicate posts on his other blogs on important subjects such as one on May 21 2016 in which he replies to Sharon Osborne as per our post “The “friend” and the appeal”.

His last entry was on May 26 2016 in a comment posted on his blog.
Oooh what a stalker!  

From then on, Not Textusa went into total and absolute hibernation.

Until he resurfaced last year, on Dec 10, to comment on our blog.

And why did he come back? Because we had said he was FiremanDave and Michael Walker/Walkercan1000 on Twitter:

Textusa 10 Dec 2017, 20:46:00 
A lovely, heart-warming comment we have just received from our 'departed' friend:

"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Red card":
I see time has not improved your mental health, Textusa.
I am not ''Fireman Sam'' or any of the other loons you have crossed swords with. In fact, I do not have a Twitter presence at all.
Kindly remove any reference you have made to me in your comments. And then go and take your tablets.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 10 Dec 2017, 20:23:00"

Is that really you or is someone impersonating you, like you so much love to do?”

Because we said he was on Twitter under different personae, he broke his silence. 563 days of it.

And he was so upset about it that he even ‘reopened’ his blog to write a post on Dec 11 2017:

“So, Maria, as I am sure you are aware that I have all your real-life details, I suggest you stop making or publishing claims that I am Michael Walker/Fireman whatever and that you do not make any reference to me in association with disgusting convicted criminal Nigel Nessling.

If you continue, I will issue proceedings against you. I will also have your Facebook page pulled again.”

And he must have spent Christmas mulling over this because on Jan 5 2018 he insisted on the issue in another post:

“I have posted this comment to her site, but I suspect she will fail to publish it. So here it is

"As already stated, I am not the twitter user you identify and I have no twitter presence.
Remove your comments, Maria"

So let's see if Textusa, aka US citizen Maria Santos, will remove her lies.”

This is true, he did submit this comment but he lies when he says it wasn’t published.

It was submitted at Jan 5 2018 20:17 and was published at Jan 5 2018 20:36:

Not Textusa 5 Jan 2018, 20:17:00
As already stated, I am not the twitter user you identify and I have no twitter presence.
Remove your comments, Maria”

Now, it’s important to note, that when he reopened the blog on Dec 11 2016, he started his post with the following words:

“Hello all, long time no see

I haven't bothered blogging as, frankly, there wasn't anything worth blogging about.”

So, from end of May 2016, until the beginning of 2017, according to him nothing important on the Maddie case happened. At least nothing worth commenting about.
I don't blog about the case, shit-for-brains. I blog about the fucktards like you who pontificate about the case. You see the subtle difference?  

For example, when Mr Amaral challenged the UK to do a reconstruction of the evening/night of May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz (article from the Express on May 1 2016 by James Murray “We must reconstruct Maddie’s fateful night”) and we detailed extensively in our post “Reconstruction for May 3rd 2007”) who we thought, explaining why, certainly should be called for that reconstruction, Insane didn’t find that important to comment.

Other subjects that happened in that period of time which Insane didn’t find important to comment on:

- When Clement Freud, the paedo, was linked to the McCanns;

- When Clarence Mitchell was fired (or was he?);

- When it was said there were Ghoul Tours in Luz;

- When Ben Needham, the other ‘celebrity British missing child’ was pronounced dead by the South Yorkshire Police;

- When the McCanns lost their appeal in the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When, as we got to know the text of the acórdão, the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court stated clearly that the McCanns had not been cleared;

- When the Daily Mail says that there was blood found in apartment 5A but says “and it is important - to point out that the blood traces were never identified as human”;

- When the McCanns filed their complaint against the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When it was reported there was a key witness that would be crucial to solve the case;

- When the McCanns lost their complaint against the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court;

- When Woman-in-Purple made her first appearance;

- When Colin Sutton appeared on scene to say Operation Grange was biased and useless;

- When the BBC broadcast their Panorama programme;

- When the McCanns conceded defeat and said that they wouldn’t file a process in the ECHR;

- When we published tweets tweeted on May 2016 saying “Mmmm! Mark Warner’s holiday centres were used as knocking shops when Maddie went missing, hence the ban on kids in many of their restaurants, as the adults would openly wife-swap during the evenings! We went there by mistake (thanks to lastminute and even tubby old me spent the week trying to evade the randy upper-class men!”;

- When the McCanns said they had filed a process in the ECHR;

- When Woman-in-Purple made her second appearance;

- When the sex-pest list hit the news;

- When Nigel Nessling was sentenced for being a paedophile.

None of the above deserved being important by Insane but the fact that we said that he was Fireman Dave and Walkercan1000 drove him back. Go figure.

He was so bothered about it that, as could be seen, he has even threatened us with legal action. As a side-note, one must ask if the libel laws in the UK have become such a joke that legal threats are used for literally anything, however absurd it may be. It seems to be the case.

Note, the last subject before hibernation he had given importance to was Sharon Osbourne.

Also note that we haven’t mentioned in the subjects above the 3 times funding of Operation Grange was continued (September 2016, April 2017 and September 2017) nor about the pathetic appearance of the Missing People’s Choir on Britain’s got talent.

So, we are all to believe that for 563 days Insane stood quietly on the side-lines while all of the above that was happening on the Maddie case happened. Seriously?
No dear - I was busy elsewhere. Had you blogged anything worth commenting on I would have dragged myself away to comment on it. Do try to keep up, dear. Keeping up is SO important.

We find more credible his airborne playful molecules and we do believe that whoever believes in them should have their heads examined.

It’s evident that Insane abandoned his blogging persona (Not Textusa ) and decided to concentrate his full attention and efforts on his Twitter one (Walkercan1000) during more than a year and a half.
Is it, indeed? Well, I am not Walker, so perhaps you should ask around, you blithering idiot? 

But was exposing Not Textusa as Walkercan1000 the only issue Insane found important enough to justify a comeback? No, and that is quite telling.
Accusing, dear. Not exposing.  

First he butted in a debate with an Anonymous about how the sedation disproves by itself the neglect theory.

We defend that someone had to be present at the time of death for the blood spatters on the walls, floor and back of couches to have happened.

Insane disputes this, says that was no blood found, basing his arguments solely on the FSS report which we all know has absolute no credibility while simultaneously discrediting Keela who has 100% credibility.
Oh dear - tinfoil hats on, everyone!
No, you fucking loon - in fact most of the tests in question were conducted by the Portuguese Forensic Service, so you will need to come up with another conspiracy theory to explain why they would scupper their own investigation.

And no dog has 100% 'credibility' as you describe it - that's what this entire argument was about.

So let's post the question that the anonymous poster couldn't get an answer to, shall we?

On what basis do you make the claim that the dogs never give false positives? 

In his Walkercan1000 persona, not only does he also deny the existence of blood as he takes this denial 3 steps even further forward.

No blood found in 5A. Ask MET, ask PJ, ask the labs. No blood. XXX #McCann #mccann #Mccann #mcCann
3:59 pm - 20 Jan 2018

The first is to invent labs (plural).

Even imagining that it was a typo and he meant to the say “lab”, he’s not being truthful. The only lab that has provided an opinion about the issue, the conveniently extinct FSS, has not said there was no blood. It has said that it tested negative for the tests (chosen by the lab to do but nowhere is the scientific data annexed to this report) that was done but never states that it isn’t blood.
The ''blood spatter'' tests were all conducted by the Portuguese, dimwit. 

The report omits saying what fluids caused the stains because it was not possible, or so says the FSS report, determine what they were. By not being able to determine from what bodily fluids the samples came from, then none can be ruled out, including blood.

The further second and third steps into this ‘blood denial’ are him saying the PJ and the Met have said there was no blood. Where has he got that info from? He hasn’t, he’s lying.
You would have to take that up with him 

About the sedation/neglect/blood debate, the reader can read it in our post “Post for comments

Besides this, he also found it important enough to intervene in the EVRD dog reliability issue discussed in last week’s post “Gemma O’Doherty”.

5. Insane hiding information

Reading our comment and subsequent replies further up in the post directed at Anonymous, even though we did say that he was Insane, there is only a certainty: that person was anonymous.

Let’s imagine that we were wrong on assessing that it was Insane. Wouldn’t Not Textusa be laughing his head off about how off the mark we were?

Plus, he could even rub in our face how stupid we were being by reinforcing the idea that he trusted totally Eddie’s capability, so he couldn’t possibly be that particular Anonymous.

But as we said right at the beginning of the post, Insane is a sore loser. And we really ridiculed that Anonymous. He was vexed.

Note is his entrance on scene. When, supposedly, he should be mocking us for mismatching him for some idiot out there he’s aggressive without a hint of his patronizing humour. Just pure anger, as he if had just been vexed.

By the way, the anonymous idiot we vexed, suddenly fell silent, as if he passed the baton to Not Textusa to continue the race.

This was Insane’s unpublished comment, his entrance on the debate:

Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
As usual, your paranoia is running rampant, Textusa. I'm not your anonymous poster. He is right, however.
Table 1
Signaling behavior in interconnection to the time of contamination
Contamination time/signaling ‘‘B.’’ ‘‘K.’’ ‘‘L.’’ Total
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living person/correct negative 26 43 46 115
Uncontaminated or contaminated by living/false positive 0 3 0 3
2 min/correct positive 9 27 12 48
2 min/false positive 0 0 0 0
2 min/false negative 3 1 4 8
10 min/correct positive 40 60 76 176
10 min/false positive 0 1 0 1
10 min/false negative 0 3 0 3
Total 78 138 138 354

Now - if you were as informed as you like to claim you are, you would recognise those results, taken from a well-respected published paper.
As you will also see, even with the loss of formatting, false positives were recorded several times. This was using fully trained, certified dogs.
Stop pretending you know what you are talking about. You don't. You're a con-artist; nothing more, nothing less.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:16:00

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is where I came in.

Textusa's lie that the dogs never return false positives was still there in black and white, and she wasn't getting away with it that easily.

So I posted the table of results from the Oesterhelweg paper, required reading for anyone with an interest in the work of these dogs. Surely as someone who has portrayed herself as an expert, who claimed that false positives never happened, she would be familiar with this pivotal paper?

Apparently not.....

We did not publish his comment because it’s just information without context. So, we could understand it we replied very politely and even promised that we would (as we are now doing) publish his comment if he gave us the link to where he got the information from:

Textusa 22 Jan 2018, 19:23:00
Unpublished Not Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:16:00
Please provide link to where you got the table you have provided so we can publish your comment.”

To this, Insane replied with a comment we didn’t publish for reasons the reader can easily understand, but that we now feel we should do as it’s relevant:

Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Gemma O'Doherty":
Go fuck yourself.
If you knew the first thing about cadaver dogs you would recognise it, but you don't because you are just a bullshitter I'll publish it on my own blog
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 22 Jan 2018, 19:46:00
Which I did 

And he kept his word, and did a post on this on his blog.

After a year and a half of silence we now have 3 posts. Two on him not having a Twitter presence and this last one, coming to the rescue of “some anonymous” who was in fact contradicting his position on Eddie, the EVRD dog.

So in his blog he wrote this as an introduction note “This is another comment Textusa refused to publish. She does that when she has no response. She has been claiming that cadaver dogs never give a false positive. This is, of course, bullshit. The rate of false positives and false negatives, when studied in controlled conditions, is very low, but they DO occur, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong”, then Insane copied and pasted the comment transcribed above and followed it with “If she had any idea what she was talking about, she would immediately recognise those results; anyone with an understanding of cadaver dogs would be familiar with them. But remember, this is the thick bitch who claimed that Madeleine's body would be covered in an oily sheen of cadaverine. Stupid cow.”

Note that his comments, both of them, and this post, share 2 things: anger and absence of source.

He does not provide a link to where he got the information from. Not even on his own blog. That piece of information that would ensure us wrong and shame us mercilessly, and yet he holds back from all.
It was held back because you should have recognised it. Which you didn't.  

According to him, every expert memorises everything they read on the internet, so that when we read those values they were supposed to ring a bell somewhere on our brains. We know many scientists who must be as dumb as bell, as we see them going back to books to confirm information they are experts on.

We are not familiar with the subject, so much less experts on it. We, on this subject as in others, read and educate ourselves as much as we can, apply logic and come to conclusions. Never forgetting our ignorance.

Our conclusions may be right or they may be wrong. When we are explained that we are wrong, or find that by ourselves, we have absolutely no qualms about recognising it and correcting our hand. We have done so in the past.
They are wrong. And you NEVER correct it. When someone posted a video of a reporter sitting at the Big Round Table you claimed it had been manipulated and that it was actually a small table.  

Before we continue, let us just make a point about an accusation made by Insane against us: “but remember, this is the (censored, no need to repeat it) who claimed that Madeleine's body would be covered in an oily sheen of cadaverine.”

We thank Insane for allowing us to bring this issue over to our new readers. We have explained our opinion quite extensively in our post “Cadaver compound

To sum it up, we have said the fluid that produces the odour that we have called cadaver odour or scent, characteristic of putrefaction is so complex that its structure is still unknown to science but it’s believed that one of its elements is cadaverine.


Cadaverine is an oily substance, as we showed with photos in our post “Cadaver compound”:

“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.”

Having not identified any other significant purely liquid element (in fact the only visible ‘liquid’ substance in the human body apart from urine is blood, which with death quickly thickens and becomes darker due to the lack of oxygenation), it seems to us to be quite clear and obvious that the end result of whatever is produced by the decomposition of the human body is something that has in itself an oily, syrupy substance, cadaverine, is an oily substance.
Oh please don't try to 'do' science - you are making my teeth itch. 

An oily fluid the body segregates as it decomposes that has such a complex structure that science is still trying to decode it.

So, it is our opinion that it is correct for us to claim that the body becomes progressively “covered in an oily sheen [his words, not ours but which we subscribe].
It is absolute bollocks.
Cadaverine is given off as a gas by a corpse. There is no 'oily sheen'

Our apparent error, is the word cadaverine, but we have already explained that we used it then and there for simplification purposes.

Yes, it’s not precise but it doesn’t minimally alter what we intended to say then. The body is indeed covered by an oily sheen, which is what contaminates the surfaces and this contamination is where the scent comes from that is picked up by the EVRD dog.
No it isn't. Jesus, she is such a dimwit. 

Even science doesn’t have a name for the fluid produced by human decomposition as far as we know.
What 'fluid'? 

But let’s go back to him not providing a link to the information he has published, so evidently, he wants to hide it from us.

And if he wants to hide it that means it contains things that are inconvenient for him and if things are inconvenient for him, then they are also for the hoax.

6. False positive

So we searched the internet to find this document.

All we had to do was to Google “Uncontaminated or contaminated by living person/correct negative” and found it. Very, very careless, Insane.
You are even more stupid than you sound, and you sound like an utter cockwomble. The whole point was that you should have recognised the data if you were as interested in this case as you claim. I have linked to that paper on countless occasions and quoted from it too, so you have no excuse  

In fact, the moment Insane saw the pictures of those 3 dogs on top of the blog, he knew we had found it.

They are from this scientific paper which we recognise as being, to use Insane’s words “from a well-respected published paper” and will also agree with him that the B, K and L, the 3 dogs in question were “fully trained, certified dogs”.

We will publish the paper in its entirety later in the post, but for now we think we should tackle first the “False Positive” question.

This is the table that Insane published from this paper:

We are not interested for this debate about the positives nor in the true or false negatives, we’re only interested in the false positives. So, let’s narrow that table down to this to this:

So, we have 1 dog, and one dog only out of 3 tested, that returned false positives. In 138 experiments he returned 4 false positives. That represents 2.9% of his results. The other 2 dogs did not give false positives.

Knowing that there was an undifferentiated category of “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples, one assumes that the “2 min” and “10 min” samples were contaminated after being in contact that time with the cadavers.

Yes, we are already revealing that this scientific paper is about an experiment with cadaver odour.

Logic determines that to experiment, valid (contaminated) and invalid (uncontaminated or contaminated by living) samples would have to be mixed.

We have struggled to understand what a false positive on a “10 min” sample is, in comparison with those on the “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” ones.
You have ''struggled to understand'' a lot of things. A false positive in this study would be indicated by the animal giving a positive response to a control sample -  ie. one not exposed to cadaver odour. You know - the thing you claim never happens?

We will assume that the latter false positives happened when the dogs were presented with only “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples while the first there was a mixture of these with contaminated ones – logic determines that there had to be “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples otherwise no positive false could have been registered.
What is this ''mixture'' of which you speak? 

This is just to clarify that the paper does not clarify if the false positive returned by K was from an uncontaminated sample or from a contaminated by living one.

There’s a huge difference. One has nothing the other something. One would mean a personality disorder of the dog, the other a response to a stimulus different from the expected.
What a load of utter bollocks. ''Personality disorder'' of the dog? 
"Ah yes, it was all going so well, then we realised the dog had Borderline Personality Disorder. Such a shame, tragic really" 

If the dog alerts to either the control uncontaminated or the living sample it's a false positive - the thing you say can't happen. 

This is not clarified in the paper. For the scientists with the scope of determining the efficiency of dogs in detecting cadaver scent, they were concerned on whether the reaction was from a sample contaminated with cadaver fluid or not. The samples in questions, “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” weren’t and got positive responses, so they were registered, correctly, as false positives.
Fluid? Who mentioned fluid? No contamination with fluid took place. You haven't read the paper, have you? 

Taking into account K signalled the sample, and this happened 4 times, we would say he reacted to samples “contaminated by living”.
And you would be entirely wrong. The paper, which you obviously haven't read, clearly states that 
"Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs"

But, we repeat, this is an assumption on our part which unless the authors say something about it, cannot be confirmed or denied.
It is in the fucking paper, you tosspot. 

We have said that the dogs do not give false positives, and this is what Insane contests. First, pretending to be an anonymous and then when identifying himself.

And after reading this paper, we continue to stand by that statement, as we hope to show why.
You can't have read it very thoroughly, dimwit, or you would have seen the above. 

We have also said “if a dog provides a false positive DURING TRAINING, he’s responding to other stimuli that he has wrongly associated his reaction to others than those intended. A dog does not cheat. A dog reacts to a stimulus. The error is in the training, not in the dog” and we also continue to stand by this as well.
You don't have a clue.  

The paper defines what was considered to be a false positive: “a false-positive reaction was defined by the dog’s positive signalling for any uncontaminated carpet squares while a false-negative signal was defined as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated material without exhibiting the proper signal.”
There again, it makes it clear what a false positive was - how can you be so stupid you don't understand this? A fucking horse could understand it.  

Looking at the table, one has to redefine this definition, or at least define what exactly is meant by“uncontaminated”. No, we are not playing with words, this is very important.

As we saw, the table presents undifferentiated categories of sample as “uncontaminated or contaminated by living”, so the definition above can only be precisely correct with the following definition: “a false-positive reaction was defined by the dog’s positive signalling for any uncontaminated BY CADAVER FLUID carpet squares while a false-negative signal was defined as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated BY CADAVER FLUID material without exhibiting the proper signal.”
All bullshit - read the paper 

That further but important specification of the terminology allows for the case of a false positive to originate from a sample contaminated by living.
No it doesn't. Read the paper  

But, the reader may say, whether it’s from a sample with nothing on it or from one without cadaver fluid, the fact is that there were false positives. 4 of them.

These 4 false positives are false positives in terms of cadaver scent, and that is VERY important to be noted.
Yes. False positives. The thing you said couldn't happen.  

We have an advantage over our readers and that is at this stage we have read the paper and, yes, there are many reasons why Insane did not put the link up and one of them has to do with this false positive question we’re currently debating.

In this experiment there were used only EVRD dogs. In the paper, the 3 dogs used they are referred to as being ‘‘blood and cadaver dogs’’.

To help readers understand the importance of this, and establishing a parallel between this case and Maddie, in this experiment there were used 3 ‘‘Eddies’’ and no ‘‘Keelas’’.

And it is the absence of a ‘‘Keela’’, a blood dog, in this experiment that may well show that the K's false positives above may not have been false objectives at all.
The process is precisely the same, so what are you on about now? 

Let's look at what Martin Grime has to say about the training of the dogs:

About Keela, the blood dog, he says ‘‘the dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.’’

About Eddie, the EVRD dog he says ‘‘the dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.’’

Do note that both dogs alert to ‘‘dried blood from a live human being’’ but the blood dog is “trained exclusively” for blood. That means that a positive reaction from an EVRD dog may be to blood while a positive reaction from the blood dog does not contain cadaver scent. 

Back to the experiment, about the 3 blood and cadaver dogs, B, K and L, the paper says that “the education and training the dogs received consisted primarily of searching for ‘‘wet’’ materials such as blood, body fluid and muscle tissue”.

We are assuming that the “body fluid” mentioned can only be what we have called cadaver fluid, the oily fluid the body produces when it decomposes.
Oh for the love of god 

As we said, we don’t dispute that K returned false positives for cadaver fluid in this experiment but hopefully by now the reader can see that it seems very likely that they were  appropriate positive reactions.
No - there was no fluid and they were not ''appropriate positive reactions'' whatever this phrase you have coined is supposed to mean. They were false positive alerts to uncontaminated control samples.  

As we saw, the false positives are from “uncontaminated or contaminated by living” samples but doesn’t say which.
The paper very clearly states which. You haven't read it.  

K also returned false negatives (defined in the paper ‘‘as the ‘‘over-running’’ of contaminated material without exhibiting the proper signal’’) which means to the samples he did not get any stimulus he did not react. This tells us that he didn’t react to clean or uncontaminated samples. 
No - that tells you he DID NOT react to contaminated samples. Jesus, this is simple stuff. 

Those 4 false positives were from “contaminated by living” samples.
No they were not. The paper states that there WERE NO ALERTS to any of the ''contaminated by living" samples  

Those samples were contaminated with something by the living. It is said that the dogs were trained for “wet” samples, which means the contamination by the living had to be “wet” as well. What that “wet” sample was exactly we don’t know, only that it had to be human.
All total bollocks 

Could that human “wet” that we don’t know what it was, be blood? Yes, it could.
No it couldn't.  

If that was the case,
It wasn't  
then was giving a positive reaction to a substance K was trained to respond to. A false positive to cadaver scent but a true positive for blood.

What was missed here, was having a blood dog present. That dog would be the one determining of K’s false positive was a true false positive (meaning K had signalled something different from any substance he was trained to detect) or a false false positive (meaning K had signalled blood).

If the blood dog signalled positively K’s false positive, it would be a false false positive. If it didn’t, then it would be a true false negative.

There wasn’t a blood dog there during the experiment, and as the study doesn’t mention anything that could clarify this, we’ll never know, what kind of a false positive this was. We have our opinion about it and will let readers have theirs.
Except that the dog alerted to the uncontaminated squares, making everything you have written a fucking joke and a mockery. Frankly, for someone passing themselves off as an authority on the Madeleine case as you do - and don't pretend you don't - it is a fucking embarrassment.  

One thing is factual, a blood dog would have clarified this question. If anything, these unexplained false positives have taught that the use in tandem of an EVRD dog with a blood one, eliminates the uncertainty about true or false positives.

When looking at the table without analysing the data on it, the immediate reaction is to “condemn” K as an unreliable dog, in comparison with the other 2.

But, as shown, one should admit the “wet” contamination by living, fell within the “blood, body fluids and muscle tissues” for which the dogs were trained to detect.
There was no ''wet'' contamination in the study, dickhead  

That would make him instead more reliable than the other 2 as he was able to detect in lesser quantities other substances to which their noses were trained to detect, which the other 2 had been unable.

K may well have been the dog with the most sensitive nose out the 3 of dogs tested.

The only way to determine that, would be to take the samples he gave false positives to and verify if they contained any substance he was supposed to react to.

If it didn’t contain such a substance, it was a true false positive and the dog would need to be immediately uncertified.
A dog is not ''immediately uncertified'' for giving a false positive 

If it did contain a substance to which he was trained to react outside cadaver scent, then it was a false, false positive.
You can't have a ''false, false positive'' you ignoramus 

But the study was about the cadaver scent and the study constrained itself, correctly, to its scope.

K did give false positives to cadaver odour under that particular set of circumstances and that doesn’t in any way serve to prove that dogs give false negatives.

But, we musn’t discard the possibility of the samples to which K gave false positives to be from uncontaminated samples, however remote that possibility.

The other possibility is that it was indeed true false positives, K reacting positively to a different stimulus than that of the cadaver scent.

In either possibility, then the problem would have been with the certification process and not with the dog itself.

We repeat, dogs do not give false positives.
Yes they do, and you have published a study showing they do, you twat.  

Certification, on the other hand, is of human determination and its criteria humanly developed. These criteria are to assure a degree of certainty required but due to human error, may prove ultimately not to be sufficient.

If K gave true false positives then he should have undergone retraining or even be excluded and all his previous findings questioned.

Note, we raised 2 possibilities: K being more reliable than the other 2 and him being less reliable than them. Neither can be confirmed or denied.

Science is dynamic and progressive. When something is found to be incorrect, science does not ignore it, it determines what went wrong and corrects it.

We have all the indications that is exactly what happened with K’s false positives within the circumstances off this particular experiment.

We imagine that is why in Praia da Luz we had 1 EVRD dog and 1 blood dog. The use in tandem of these dogs to eliminate uncertainties.

And probably due to this scientific paper, in terms of current training, reliability is of absolute and utmost importance as is stated in the paper “Rigorous Training of Dogs Leads to High Accuracy in Human Scent Matching-To-Sample Performance” by Sophie Marchal, Olivier Bregeras, Didier Puaux, Rémi Gervais, and Barbara Ferry and brought to us by Anne Guedes, very clearly states:

“…with dogs matching samples with 90% efficiency when the complexity of the scents presented during the task in the sample is similar to that presented in the in lineups, and specificity reaching a ceiling, with no false alarms in human scent matching-to-sample tasks


Only dogs that gave no False Alarms over 200 trials during step 5 (corresponding to the last 24 sessions or 4 to 5 weeks of training) entered the judicial case program. The experimental group comprised 9 dogs (Frost, Diva, Cisko, Bac, Athos, Cartmen, Batu, Dunak and Carlos).


Only dogs that gave no False Alarms over 200 trials during step 5 and continuous training entered the judicial case program. Continuous training continued between each judicial case procedure and throughout the working period of the dog’s life. One dog (Athos) was excluded from the group because its records were accidently lost. The total number of animals in the experimental group was then 12.


These two observations were also confirmed by the fact that all 8 False Alarms observed in the 18,127 trials in continuous training were obtained with the TS/BS combination and in Belgian Shepherds.

BS and TS likely consist of mixtures of various odorant compounds (body molecules + distractors) present in different proportions.”

8 False Alarms in 18,127 in training. 100% needed for certification. Continuous training . One dog excluded because records lost. Is there anything to be said about the reliability of EVRD dogs?
That is a description of a training programme. It tells you absolutely nothing about how rigorous the training is or under what conditions the false alerts were recorded. It bears no relationship to what we have been discussing

7. K v Eddie

Before we transcribe on the blog the scientific paper we would like to establish the relevance of the false positives in the Maddie case.

Impressive reliability for dual-purpose dogs! Both B and L have proven to 100% reliable and let’s take the worst-case scenario concerning K, and that would be that K’s certification had not been reliable enough and he had an error of 3%.

Note, that he could have also 100% reliability but, as we said, we’re going for the option least favourable to us. Even in such circumstances he was 97% of the times correct.

As we said, K was a dual-purpose blood and EVRD dog. Eddie was a single purpose EVRD dog.

But let’s again, go for the least favourable scenario for us, and let’s “copy and paste K’s unproven unreliability” on to Eddie’s performance.

In practical terms, and only for argument’s sake let’s give Eddie a reliability of 97%.

That means one has to take all that Eddie has signalled and deem only 3% of those results as a false positive. All other 97% are then absolutely reliable, confirmed cadaver scent.

We ask the pros to choose one of the results, any of the results and label it as a false positive. But only one, to fulfil the criteria of 97% / 3%, which is the least favourable possible one to be extracted from a respected scientific experiment specifically on the issue

So, if Eddie was unreliable in the living room, then that means he correctly signalled cadaver scent in the closet and all other signalled locations.

If one chooses to say it was in the closet that he “scored” a false positive then he was 100% right in the living-room and so on.

Please note that we are playing with statistics. EVRD dogs, as we saw in the training paper, are 100% reliable.

Without having the reader read the paper, we hope to have proved that this “well-respected published paper” PROVES SCIENTIFICALLY that cadaver scent was found in apartment 5A, the Renault Scenic and clothing related to the McCanns.

Dogs noses are such a wonderful piece of machinery that even as dual-purposes, it was proved that 2 dogs were 100% reliable and the third one could even be better than them.
All completely irrelevant. The challenge was to your claim that the dogs never give false positives. All you have succeeded in proving is that they do indeed sometimes give false positives. So thanks for that, halfwit. 

8. The document

Here it is, the famous paper known as the “Oesterhelweg paper” which Insane has used throughout these years to claim superior knowledge of EVRD dogs and done all he could to avoid us finding it. Until the day he couldn’t stand losing an argument and got careless:
I "avoided you finding it" by frequently posting links to it?

You should have known about and been familiar with the paper anyway, you have been pumping out uninformed guff for long enough 

Please enjoy and extract from it all it has to offer:

Cadaver dogs—A study on detection of contaminated carpet squares

L. Oesterhelweg (a,b), S. Krober (c) , K. Rottmann (c) , J. Willho¨ft (c) , C. Braun (a) , N. Thies (d) , K. Puschel (a) , J. Silkenath (c) , A. Gehl (a)
I am leaving the link in so that you can all access the paper. However, I am deleting the paper itself as it is a clear breach of copyright to copy and paste it in its entirety 

Doesn’t it say so much? No wonder Insane didn’t want us to read it.
Au contraire, my deranged and deluded friend. I am delighted you have read it, and pissing myself laughing that you got it all wrong. Now go back and read it properly.  

9. The sentence without a body

Insane, in his Walkercan1000 persona, keeps trying to discredit Martin Grime and his dogs.

I'm not him. Next..... 

To those saying that no court in the world would take his dogs as serious (as in corroborating, as the dogs only determine that a corpse was present and not its identity) evidence, we got to know from a pro-McCann tweeter about the article from Click on Detroit, “Authorities stand by ruling that Bianca Jones was killed by her father 6 years ago” published on Jan 17 2018  by Kevin Dietz, Derick Hutchinson.

Note how the defense in this case tries to discredit the EVRD dogs:

“The key witness in the trial was a cadaver dog, which the defense team called unreliable.”


“Lane's attorney [Terry Johnson] said the dog trainer is unreliable.

"There were other cases where it was found out the dogs weren't properly trained," Johnson said.

Johnson said police believe a barking dog more than three eyewitnesses who said they saw Bianca alive after the time police said she had died.”

Note how the defense tries to push an abduction theory:

“Lane's attorney, Terry Johnson, said police officers should not make assumptions.

"I don't know if it was necessarily a carjacking as much as it was a kidnapping," Johnson said. "I don't know if someone owed a debt to someone and this was a way of repaying that debt. "”

Note how the defense tries to convey the idea that the police targeted his client:

“Johnson claims the police had an agenda.

"They started that evening with Mr. Lane, and they never took their foot off the accelerator," Johnson said.”

Note how there are sightings of the girl:

“Johnson said police believe a barking dog more than three eyewitnesses who said they saw Bianca alive after the time police said she had died.”

The three witnesses, named in a article linked to this one, are a cousin, a police officer and a private investigator.

About the police officer, although she allegedly identifies the little girl 8 days later but doesn’t take any action for another 4 days (aren’t we reminded of a certain social worker of the Maddie case?) because “she said she told a couple of friends who were police officers but didn't take any official action for four days. She said homicide officials had already decided the father had killed Bianca”

Her testimony was correctly dismissed (as should the statements of that certain social worker but because it’s music to some ears, to them she will be truthful until hell freezes over) by the prosecution:

“The prosecutor who sent D'Andre Lane to prison isn't buying that Bianca is still alive.

"That [the officer’s claim] just doesn't make sense," former Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Qiana Lillard said. "You're a Detroit police officer. This is the biggest thing that happened in the city of Detroit. Everyone is looking for this little girl."”

Note how it’s being tried to get people to look for her:

“"This little girl is alive," Michael Salisbury [the private investigator, one of the 3 witnesses who says the girl is alive] said. "I've seen her."

They're all certain someone knows where Bianca is.

"Somebody will say, 'The little girl's alive. Here's where you can find her,'" Salisbury said.

Johnson said Bianca is alive and in need of rescue. He said her father is an innocent man being held behind bars for life.

"Until this child is found, I don't believe Mr. Lane is going to be exonerated," Johnson said.”

All too familiar? It’s because it is.

But note how discrepancies matter:

“Police said Lane's story didn't add up. He called a friend, not 911, and when he did talk to police, they said he didn't have much information.

"They're trying to pry information out of him," Dillon said. "'What happened?' And you can hear him barely talking."

Prosecutors think Lane tossed his daughter's body into a dumpster and lied about where he was.

"Once they realized that he spent 17 minutes east of Woodward (Avenue), unaccounted for, they tried to halt the trash pickup in that area, but it was too late," Dillon said. "The trash had already been picked up."”

Note how Martin Grime’s cadaver dog mattered:

“Police were especially convinced by dog trainer Martin Grime, who used a cadaver dog to sniff out the presence of a decomposing body.

"We had five hits," Dillon said. "The back seat, the car seat, the blanket, her bed and the trunk of the car. At that point, when our hearts sunk, we're, like, 'We're not finding this little girl.'"

And note to what conclusions the authorities have come to:

“Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy released the following statement on the case:

"This was a heartbreaking case. Defendant Lane was the last one seen with Bianca, and since then, there have been no credible sightings of the child. Ms. (witness Anjali) Lyons was not pressured into testifying.

"We proved beyond a reasonable doubt in court that Bianca is no longer alive and that her father, D'Andre Lane, killed her."”

D’Andre Lane is now serving a life sentence for the murder of Bianca. A sentence passed without a body.

Only in the Maddie case are the EVRD dog signals ignored. Up to now, that is.

Until the day someone reads the FSS “properly” and is “surprised” by what it contains and was “missed”. Or the day the Portuguese Forensic Lab, the INML, will “surprisingly” find evidence in the samples it has of the case.

Note that we’re not in any way implying that Maddie was murdered. We believe and have always defended that she was the victim of an accident, which in the Portuguese penal code would be a non-qualified homicide without negligence or intent, the equivalent to involuntary manslaughter.
I don't think so. You described her being hit, sent flying across the room, to cover up what the adults were doing. That implies both negligence and intent. You have always implied she was murdered, but tried to couch it in terms that make it sound not so bad  

Eventually, if we are right in what we think happened, it could be considered privileged homicide which is one practiced under the domain of an understandable violent emotion, compassion, despair or reason of relevant social or moral value, that sensibly diminish the guilt.

10. Conclusion

In the Maddie case the blog we will never turn our faces away from the truth.

If we were proven wrong about false positives, we would have no problem in recognising it.
You have been proven wrong. So recognise it 

You won't, of course. You are too much of a liar to do that.

In fact, we have in this post recognised the possibility that K produced false positives due to certification shortfalls.

But that possibility has the same possibility of having happened as the one in which K did not produce any false positives, as they could only be false positives to cadaver scent but could be true positives for substances for which he was trained for to detect.
Total bullshit 

But what matters is that when throwing a tantrum against us, Insane has helped us to significantly prove the unquestionable reliability of the EVRD dogs, validating fully that a cadaver was present in apartment 5A as signalled by Martin Grime’s Eddie.

Not only that, but by doing so, he has discredited himself and his playful airborne cadaver odour molecules.

Not because the EVRD dogs are unreliable, because as we have seen they are absolutely reliable, but because he has proven that he had knowledge of these false-positives of cadaver scent by a dual-purpose (blood and cadaver) dog and not only he did not mention it all these years he hid something that would significantly compromise whatever he defends, which is the hoax.

We would say quite a reprehensible attitude for a scientist to have. Yes, he does claim that he’s a scientist. 

He cannot say the EVRD dogs, even if rarely, give false positives, which he does, while at the same time defend that the same dogs can pick up airborne molecules that entered the apartment and have refused to budge for months on a used apartment, as he does.
That's how residual odour works, you fucktard. It is also how Martin Grime explained it 

It shows clearly that Not Textusa lies, as we showed in our “Third Option Post”. This is him speaking:

“The dog alerts - these might not be something you can take to court, but it's a very strong indication as to the direction you would want to look. There is much discussion about the minimum time taken for cadaver odour to develop, and an hour and a half is frequently mentioned. In fact, this arises because of a misreading of the discussion in the Osterhelweg paper - that paper found very high levels of accuracy in the cadaver dogs they tested, and the post mortem interval in the cases they studied was approximately 90 minutes. So while that suggests that after an hour and a half the dog alerts are extremely reliable, it does not establish the MINIMUM time required before the dogs can detect the odour. From other work, it could potentially be considerably less.

However, this misreading has created an idea that there must be a cut-off at 8.30pm, and that whatever happened must have happened before then. That is not necessarily so. And of course this all assumes that the source of the alerts was Madeleine's dead body. Unlikely though it is, one has to consider other possibilities, because a Defence team certainly would. I suggest people research this themselves, as I have no intention of handing information to the pro lobby.”
So there you are - after your claims that I kept my source 'secret' I refer to the Oesterhelweg paper ages ago - you have always known where that data was from 

90 minutes or considerably less, says Insane. We’ll quote ourselves from that same post:

“We spoke extensively of this paper and Insane’s supposed passion for it in paragraph “5 - References” of  our post “Playful molecules”.

We will quote next and from that post the relevant passage of this paper – the only one we believe Insane has ever read of said scientific paper – but first we would like to expose once again Insane for the liar he is.

When he says “Osterhelweg paper - that paper found very high levels of accuracy in the cadaver dogs they tested, and the post mortem interval in the cases they studied was approximately 90 minutes” he’s contradicted by the paper which states very clearly that “At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively”.

That means before the experiment began, both men were cadavers for over 90 minutes.

We haven’t read the paper (we have explained what we have read of it in our post “Playful Molecules”) but we don’t need to read it to state with absolute certainty that there’s nothing in it concerning the first 90 minutes post mortem as no scientific paper would come to with any scientific conclusions about anything that preceded the start of an experiment.”

No wonder he never got to have time to respond to that post, although a specific request for him to do it was made by his friend Kee Cee (who has a plethora of other names with which he signs his comments). What disrespect shown by Insane to Kee Cee, one of his most frequent commentators on his blog, followed by Tigger.
Oh ffs, grow up 

The Osterhelweg paper is quite adamant and answers, or tries to, answer that question directly:

“The most interesting question of all remains: that of how long must an individual be dead for his/her scent to be detectable by a trained cadaver dog? Answering this pertinent question was not part of our investigation, but we can point out that a postmortem interval of 2 h seems to be a safely recognizable interval for the detection of deceased tissue by trained cadaver dogs.”

Also, it shows what his knowledge on the subject is, as when the paper states that the dogs were trained with “wet” material, his theory that the cadaver scent is purely of gaseous material is contradicted. 
Oh my fucking god. Why can't you understand this?
Regardless of how the animals were trained, this study looked at the detection of cadaver scent which had been transferred to the collection material - ie the carpet squares - not by direct contact, not by fluid contamination, but merely by the tiles being in proximity to, but not in contact with, the cadavers. The scent transfer is gaseous, you dickhead 

But then again we are before a SCIENTIST. One who has invented not only the “Playful but endlessly patient airborne molecule thesis” but also that of the “Maddie’s graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A lies, behold, on an ancient medieval graveyard:

To a very direct and specific question: “If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there.”

Insane, the scientist replies:

“Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”

All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.
Which it is.  

We found this to be of very useful reading on cadaver and blood dogs from @Syn0nymph:

It debunks many pro-McCann myths related to this subject, for example it debunks what Clarence Mitchell said on Richard Bilton’s BBC Panorama about Eddie having passed the cuddly toy without signalling it, with this:

“I asked Martin why Eddie did not alert to cuddle cat when he first encountered the toy and his response was this, and I quote:

"Eddie was given a cuddly toy as a reward in training so reverted to puppy mode. His inital reaction in playing with the toy was not unusual at all."”

For some reason, Martin Grime is a visiting fellow of Staffordshire University, at the department which teaches forensics.
Why shouldn't he be? 

About Insane being or not both Walkercan1000 and Not Textusa, is it only us who have noticed the uncanny similarity between the writings of them 2?
Well, it seems to be, as no-one else has accused me and most people are not as thick as you  

To be honest, it has baffled us for a long time how people failed to link Insane with Walkercan1000.
Probably because I am not him and because most things baffle you. Mixer taps probably baffle you  

And his Walkercan1000 persona can also stop lying when he says the cadaver scent only lasts 28 days. This what the paper says:

“This systemic investigation ended after 65 days due to the limited time of the dogs and dog handlers to perform regular searches. Non-scientific trial searches performed over the next several months demonstrated additional error-free runs.” and “in agreement with Schoon’s study on the aging of scents, we could not find a decrease in the accuracy of the dog’s performance.”
A point which I have made using the same data on countless occasions. Do try to keep up, it's like being stalked by a special-needs gerbil. 

Post Scriptum:

“Madeleine #mccann. The first little girl in the world to play dressing up and messing with make up.”

The fact that this particular tweeter, tweeted this at this particular time and in the tweet are the words “Madeleine” and “messing with”, added with the fact that this particular tweeter annexed the make-up photo but not the original but a cropped one, is VERY INTERESTING.

No one, as far as we know, was tweeting about this photo at the time. For some reason, this particular tweeter had a sudden urge to tweet about it.

As our usual readers know, we will not answout this particular Post any questions ab
Oh Fuck off 

So in summary, Maria Santos, who also goes by the name Textusa (See, we can all do that) claimed that dogs never gave false alerts. I stated that they do. In order to try to disprove me, she used my own source and claimed I had interpreted it wrongly, claiming that the ''false positives'' were all to the living subjects.

Now - if they had alerted to the living subjects, they would still be false alerts. But the paper clearly states that there were no alerts to the living subjects and all the false positives were to the control group. So she can't even get that right.

The woman is a liar and a fraud


The loony just posted this

No, I am correct in all things. What the fucktard refers to as my graveyard theory is also correct, but she wouldn't understand, it requires an education 
Remember this is the paper she claimed to have studied in great detail, but which she claimed I had only read one paragraph of 
Ah, the sound of the penny dropping. I expect a full apology and retraction too 
So basically, you are going to leave the post as it is and deny it all in a postscript. Such bravery! 
Oh really? 
So do it, and apologise to me 
So having admitted that she was wrong and that dogs do indeed return false positives, she intends to stand by her claim that they don't.

What an absolute fuckwit this woman is. 

The false positives were recorded in studies, you lunatic. Nothing to do with the certification
They were not extreme circumstances at all - they were designed to mimic the series of events which follow a death. They were more controlled and thus more accurate and reliable than results obtained in the field.  
Well this is the funniest of all - the paper does nothing of the kind, and certainly makes no finding about Eddie being 100% reliable - impossible as he wasn't the dog being studied 
So basically this lying piece of shit has been found out, but hasn't the good grace to apologise and correct her error, having said that she would.
She is a liar, a fraud and a con-artist.


You can also apologise for claiming that I am that fuckwit Walker. 


When I entitled this post "Barking Mad" I did not imagine quite how true that was going to be
Having run away, with her usual cowardly shout of "Other things to do!", she has now reappeared and posted the following:

Having giving a thought on the subject, we have to apologise for our apology.

Post remains as is. In fact, the above proves us to be even more right.

Sometimes, when one strives for truth, one tends to react impetuously and that is what happened today. And for that we apologise.

We will explain all here, in the comment section when we have time. After all, we're in a weekend.
So there you have it, folks, she is now apologising for the apology. But she won't tell you why just yet, because she's busy. 

What a useless waste of human skin. Just admit you made a mistake and apologise.

Honorable Mention 

For outstanding fuckwittery beyond the call of duty, comes this feeble offering

Yes you were right first time, Textusa.

"Searches of squares contaminated with the scent of the control (alive) subjects, ilicited no signals from any of the cadaver dogs."

So the dogs did not react in any way to surfaces that had been in contact with living people, and reacted ONLY to those that had been contaminated with deceased human tissue/substances.

A very interesting and well-constructed piece of research.

No, she WASN'T right first time, you fucktard. The dogs recorded false positives where they reacted to UNCONTAMINATED squares.

Seriously, some of you people need to consider making time to attend school at some point and not just to empty the bins. 

Lesley, dear, don't comment on things you don't understand. Leave it to the grown-ups.  

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