Translate

Saturday, 9 June 2018

In Memoriam




PS

I can't resist it, I am just going to add this passage.


We have said previously and say that this compound is syrupy. Although the exact composition of the compound remains unknown to science, cadaverine is one of the range of substances and is syrupy. Those mocking us for saying that it’s syrupy please take the issue up with the scientific community and not with us:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cadaverine%20syrup

As it’s syrupy, or greasy, when in contact with other surfaces this substance, what we call cadaver compound, adheres to it and contaminates it.

I'm not going to explain the whole process again, because there is obviously a huge bit missing between reality and Textusa's brain, like the unfinished motorway in the film ''Speed'' and there is no way her little grey cells are going to have enough revs to cross that fucking chasm.

Let me just assure those wondering what the buggering bollocks she is on about that corpses do not secrete liquid cadaverine or this mythical compound she has invented. If you want liquid cadaverine you need a lot of bacteria, a fuck load of protein, barrels of solvent, a bunsen burner and a fractionation column. If God had wanted us to dissolve away an hour after death into a sticky, foul smelling puddle, he would have shoved a fractionation column up our arses or at least made us extras in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where dead body disposal is aided by turning into dust or oozing away down a drain. 

31 comments:

  1. There is release and leaching of the compounds into the surrounding soil or surfaces during active decay stage, which is when the liquefaction of the soft tissue starts. Maybe she's talking about that, giving this 'syrupy'-whatever explanation/simplification? While she needs to be corrected undoubtedly, you're too harsh on her I believe. In my opinion she displays a genuine albeit juvenile interest in the field and should be encouraged to learn and not be admonished.
    I suggest to her Taphonomy of Human Remains as a good read on the matter https://www.wiley.com/en-gr/Taphonomy+of+Human+Remains:+Forensic+Analysis+of+the+Dead+and+the+Depositional+Environment-p-9781118953327


    PS: some of her conclusions I must agree are borderline comical at times. Still there's some potential here :)

    Do you disagree with the dogs findings? Do you believe the procedure was compromised? Without knowing the area, personally I cannot lean one way or the other but I trust the local police were honest in their findings. We really can't dismiss the cadaver dog in this case I'm afraid even if the forensic evidence failed to support it adequately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think I am harsh on her at all. I have explained it to her more times than I care to remember but she will not listen. This ''syrupy'' nonsense is because she found a photograph of purified cadaverine and her brain cannot make the leap between cadaverine produced as one of many volatile amines during decomposition and the chemical process required to purify and liquify it.

      Contrary to her many claims, I am a huge advocate of specialised dogs, both in the detection of cadavers and in laboratory work where they are increasingly used to detect target molecules such as are produced in bladder cancer, for example - something they do with greater accuracy than traditional laboratory testing, I might add.

      What I will not do is support or endorse someone making claims which are not supported by the evidence.
      Dogs are trained to give an alert when they detect a specific odour/odours. Studies, of which Textusa would know nothing had I not introduced them to her blog, have shown that they identify their target scent with a very high degree of accuracy. However, the dogs do not make 'findings'. We have to rely on the human element for that.
      What Textusa cannot get her head around is the fact that the volatile amines associated with the early stages of decomposition of given off as gases. Those molecules can adhere to a variety of surfaces and elicit an alert long after the source - ie, a dead body - has been removed. That is EXACTLY the principle at play in the study to which she refers - there was NO CONTACT between the corpse and the carpet tiles which were used as a medium to 'capture' the scent, for want of a better word. If I seem harsh on her it is because she doesn't listen, she lies, and in case you have missed this, she has spent the best part of a year telling people that I am a well-known McCann supporter, so you'll forgive me if I am all out of fucks to give.

      And for the avoidance of doubt, no I do not believe, and have never suggested that the procedure was in any way compromised - I have spent years defending it.

      Delete
    2. Wouldn't say it was being hard on her at all...misinfo is as bad as disinfo. And of course you are right too about the dogs...no matter how right we believe them to be their findings are not backed up...therefore useless.

      Delete
  2. Could the process of Alkaline Hydrolysis be where the idea of dead bodies giving off syrup came from?

    SHOULD DEAD BODIES BE TURNED INTO GOO?

    Dissolving dead bodies to create a brown, foul-smelling syrup may sound gruesome, but that’s exactly what some people are hoping to happen to them once they pass away.

    The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed more than two decades ago to get rid of animal carcasses. It’s a more efficient and environmentally-friendly of getting rid of dead bodies, according to scientists.

    Alkaline hydrolysis uses lye, 300°C heat and huge amounts of pressure to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders that look similar to pressure cookers.

    The process involves submerging the body in a solution of water and potassium hydroxide, which is then pressurised and heated for two-and-a-half to three hours.

    This leaves a green-brown tinted liquid containing amino acids, peptides, sugars and salts and soft, porous white bone remains which are easily crushed.

    Because of its environmental advantages, some in the funeral industry say it could someday rival burial and cremation.

    It also eliminates concerns about crematorium emissions, including carbon dioxide, which can be released into the air as part of the process.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2811142/The-chemistry-DEATH-Watch-gruesome-chemical-processes-place-inside-body-die.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, it's very simple. She googled Cadaverine, found a picture of some extracted and purified, and promptly announced that Madeleine's body would be covered in an 'oily sheen' of pure cadaverine.
      And now she has to stick to it.
      She doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept of residual odour at all. It is too much for her brain to cope with that a dog can still detect the target scent even when the source is no longer there.

      I blame google. The fact that she never cracked a book in her life means she is unable to interpret what she reads.

      Delete
    2. Well she is determined to be right! But I know for a fact that she is wrong through direct observation, having performed last offices on numerous occasions and having also attended autopsies. To be fair if one depends only on Google searches many references do describe 'cadaverine' as being liquid, and I am no good at chemistry!

      Delete
    3. I might be wrong but in the case of,for example, a long term cancer sufferer,the organs are already breaking down and ultimately failing killing the sufferer. What you see is a body already being eaten alive. This is different from a sudden death where the body is healthy. Have attended relatives last moments and seen what leaks from orifices in last hours/minutes but on evidence is not applicable in the case of madeleine.

      Delete
    4. And this is one of the reasons why, for the sake of justice, there has to be a confirmation of the dog alerts. There are numerous circumstances where the same volatile amines which are produced during putrefaction can be produced in a patient still living, most notably where the patient has a chronic unhealed wound such as a pressure sore, or more accurately, a pressure ulcer. If a limb or an area of tissue does not receive sufficient oxygenated blood, it can start to die - that's what happens with wounds like leg ulcers and in the extremities of children with septicemia. In effect, the processes are little different to post-mortem decomposition; autolysis causes the tissues to break down, the wounds become colonised by proteolytic bacteria - ie, bacteria which can break down proteins - and so amines like putrescine and cadaverine are produced. The same thing can happen in the body with certain cancers, and some can actually break through to the skin. Trust me, there are some truly ghastly ways to die.
      I haven't written about this before in reference to Maddie because doubtless the usual ''dog disser'' cobblers will kick off again, but it has to be understood that an alert by a decomp dog only tells you that the products of human decomp are in the air, not how they got there or to whom they belong. It is worth remembering that the dogs also alerted to a premises in the Shannon Matthews search, but was she dead? No. But the furniture had, like the little boy in Sixth Sense, 'seen dead people'

      Delete
    5. I thought as much. A relative had an mrsa infection in a wound from a knee replacement which killed him ultimately. I knew he was a goner a day before as that weirdly sweet smell of death was present. Kind of makes timings and timescales a muddy area too in the case of suden death

      Delete
    6. I'm sorry to hear that, Nick. 'Weirdly sweet' is a very good description. It can be incredibly distressing for family and for the patient themselves.

      Delete
  3. I am a free thinker who is interested in a scientists take on this subject, I'm not influenced by any theory, I won't be put in a box because I've commented over here, the fact is we all believe different things and no one wants to be put in a box. I welcome a educated scientific viewpoint on this subject so thanks for that.


    Cat

    ReplyDelete
  4. Whereas I am all for NT helping people, including me, understand the science and the processes involved I cannot understand why people wish to go on debating the dogs in regard to determining who the criminals involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are. I find it especially pointless that it is also used as a kind of touchstone of where one stands in the peculiar tribalism that accompanies McCann debate.

    After eleven years and 742,000 words - and that was just yesterday's post - T. has stated that the dogs evidence as it stands cannot be used in a prosecution. It will not be admissible.

    She still cannot bring herself to understand what evidence or proof is, by adding that, "We believe the dogs’ indications provide evidence that M died in apartment 5A, although this is not evidence that is accepted in a court of law without forensic corroboration."

    Which misses the entire point: the evidence will not be admissible precisely because it cannot DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF THE PROPOSITION that "M died in apartment 5A." Some people still will not appreciate what Menezes meant when he said "show it to us". To simplify it as much as I can, and allowing for the fact that any discussion of truth can eventually run into the quicksands if people wish it to,an old fashioned fingerprint is the evidence that can be shown to a jury in support of the proposition that John Smith was the burglar.

    But a smudged print that has only a certain (below threshold) probability of being a match to John Smith does not DEMONSTRATE any truth about Mr Smith. As a result it has no status except to back the beliefs, or opinions, of each side.

    And Textusa has given a perfect example above of this uselessness: she's using it to back her opinion that dog evidence means that M. died in the apartment, while from exactly the same evidence, other posters argue that it doesn't: so nothing is decided. But such a standoff is what trials are designed to exclude, isn't it?

    The fingerprint, on the other hand, and with all the usual provisos,will be accepted by both prosecution and defence in the trial of John Smith, something the judge will point out in the summing up and which any jury foreman will remind people of if necessary.

    Admitted or non-admitted in court, it's all the same, except that non-admission cuts out the time that would be wasted by arguing these significance issues in court; either way, the dog evidence is not strong enough to determine either guilt or innocence.

    That's not much use to us, is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening John,

      You are exactly right.
      What the 'dogs' issue represents now is a way for halfwitted fucknuggets like Textusa to determine two things:

      1. Friend or foe? Friends must agree with the statement that each and every dog alert was definitely, cast iron, no doubt in my mind, an alert to the dead body/blood of Madeleine McCann, regardless of whether this is either true or provably true. Any failure to agree with this statement positions one as definitely a pro, and probably Walker, or in the words of Carla Spadeface, "Fkn Insane/Walker/Wright"

      2. To what extent the ''doubter/disser'' can be bullied and manipulated into category 1.

      The dogs, and an unshakable acceptance of what cabbages like textusa insist they mean, is a central "Anti" tenet. Check your brains at the door, you can't come in here unless you swear an oath of allegiance to the syrupy, whiffy corpse, regardless of the fact that it is A) wrong, or B) immaterial.

      It is not just Textusa. But she is the most stupid of a brain-dead bunch. It is like watching a load of legless people arguing over a shoe.

      Delete
    2. "Admitted or non-admitted in court, it's all the same."

      I beg to differ. The court of law appears, as ever, to be at odds with the court of common sense, especially with regard to the salience of sniffer dog alerts.

      Extreme public interpretations can currently be seen to take the form: 'Without corroboration the EVRD alerts are useless'. Personally I wouldn't put it quite that strongly (I don't believe bomb disposal operatives seek a second opinion, for example).

      The paradox as I see it is that forensic corroboration, in the form of 'biological vestiges', to coin a phrase, is itself compromised by the possibility that said vestiges can derive just as feasibly from a living person as a dead one. In which case any argument to the effect that (b) confirms (a) is weakened. But (a), hence (b) places the accent once more on the very index that, according to law, requires 'evidence' in support.

      Sadly, the juridical demand for a demonstrable first-order connection between stimulus and response in this instance appears to reflect peoples' inability to infer a genuinely logical conclusion. It's one of those 'if the glove doesn't fit you must acquit' situations (never mind the fact that anyone can get their fingers inside a smaller glove if needs be).

      "The dog evidence is not strong enough to determine either guilt or innocence."

      In the context of a jury's being required to 'figure it out' (which under current strictures they would not be) the question as to exactly what crime people might be guilty or innocent of is important. One only needs play the hypothesis of abduction off against the fact of the EVRD alerts to arrive at precisely those Portuguese accusations expressed in the archiving report. Corpses have to be carried in order to move around after all.

      Delete
    3. Hello.

      It's a free country. I'm sure you're right. I have nothing to add.


      Delete
    4. Good afternoon

      It seems that the outcome of this brief exchange is that it has been accepted that ‘admitted’ and ‘non-admitted’ in court are not the same, and that it is not necessarily the case that the dog evidence is not strong enough to determine either guilt or innocence, A statement to the contrary may be misleading therefore.

      Ag

      Delete
    5. Anon...even then i think you'll find that the bomb disposal guys will move in and corroborate the dogs evidence by blowing the shit out the device...without forensically checking its a fucking bomb. Bit of a useless analogy. Fact is without other evidence to back the dog findings they alone could not convict...simple yes or no? Is that not law? And if it is take the problem up with them because as it stands there is no inference that legally can be drawn.

      Delete
    6. That's the problem - in the case which is always offered up for comparison there was an absolute shitload of circumstantial evidence. He would probably have been convicted without the dog alerts

      Delete
    7. Scratch that last comment.
      For some reason in wrong place???

      Delete
    8. Theory..evidence based conclusion open to change as more evidence is made available
      Textusa...utter guess based on no evidence but plenty of anglophilia. Jb it certainly is no use to anyone.

      Delete
    9. Nick - have spammed that comment for now; did you want me to move it to a different thread?

      NT

      Delete
    10. Nah its cool...phone was playing up. 'Tis fine mate.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous11 June 2018 at 04:58

    What a very good post. Thank you.

    Ag

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ag - I've withheld your comment for now, simply because I think it's getting a little personal. If you want to re-draft it without the personal element, I'll happily publish it. I am all for robust debate, but there is a fine line between people being asked to defend an idea and being asked to defend themselves and I'd like to keep it to the former, not the latter, if you get my drift? Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most grateful for your opinion, NT. Your word is my command. I certainly will re-concider my stance.

      May I hope that at least the pigeon is safe? :D

      Ag

      Delete
    2. If I may clarify:

      “there is a fine line between people being asked to defend an idea and being asked to defend themselves and I'd like to keep it to the former, not the latter”

      I unreservedly agree.

      However, were I to take the liberty of expressing my opinion regarding my recent post, withheld as it appeared to be getting a little personal, I would say that I do not and did not go for ‘the messenger’: I simply addressed a person who, in my view, had expressed an opinion capable of misleading.

      There was no discourtesy or disrespect towards the person in what I said. Nothing interrogative, the entire post was assertive. Perhaps a challenge might have been deemed to have been implied.

      Unless I’m teasing, I ask no personal questions.

      I’m dying to know, say, if our honourable host shaves their legs (and who wouldn’t?), but I would not dream of asking.

      (By the way, do you or do you not shave your legs, NT?)

      Respectfully

      Ag

      Delete
    3. It is a truth universally acknowledged that I am as hard as nails and, apparently “low class”. So I merely take the top two inches off with a belt sander.
      Regards,
      NT

      Delete
  7. And before anyone pipes up, yes, I certainly do attack Baldylocks, Textusa and others. That is because they are twats. I do not attack people simple based on the opinions they hold, but on the way they disseminate them and the way they treat people who have done nothing wrong

    ReplyDelete
  8. :D

    I seek enlightenment, Master. ‘There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief’. I’ve heard much about belt sanders, but what are ’hard’, ‘nails’, and ‘low class’?

    Humbly

    Ag

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apparently they disapprove of my language. Fred and Rosemary West tried to get one of Billy Connolly's videos banned because they disapproved of his language. The garden was full of bodies, but they disapproved of him saying "Fuck"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :D

      I can see… I can see the light! I won’t be asking you, Master, what ‘Fuck’ is, I’ll go and find out myself.

      Ag

      Delete

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.