New VIDEO - Who Died In McCanns Apartment? Sniffer Dogs Eddie & Keela Alert to Cadaver/Blood.

Outstanding video Hideho. This has been shared on facebook. The message is clear Thank you!

Fantastic work on the videos HdH

Re:Gm's"...we're not denying the existence of the dogs."
What a ridiculous statement to make! We all know the dogs "exist" DOH!
He's just denying their findings. They've been right in over 200 cases Gerry.

maebee wrote:Fantastic work on the videos HdH

Re:Gm's"...we're not denying the existence of the dogs."
What a ridiculous statement to make! We all know the dogs "exist" DOH!
He's just denying their findings. They've been right in over 200 cases Gerry.

Gerry's command of the English language is not too good!

...not denying the existence of the dogs! Well, they look real to me!

HiDeHo wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:I have been advised of some 'factual' discrepancies.

Probably not important to the casual viewer but necessary to change for pro McCann arguments.

I am editing as advised and will upload a new copy shortly.

The original video will still be available with the link.

Just to let you know that I have replaced the original video with a correction to the 'facts'.

The updated video does not include 'Eddie & Keela' in the title.



I was not fully aware that, as far as can be assessed, there has not been 'proof' that Eddie does not alert to only cadaver scent, and that he can also alert to blood.

This is why Keela is brought in. Used in tandem with Eddie, Keela alerts to blood and therefore the remaining areas that Eddie alerts to would be 'cadaver' scent.

This would mean that Eddie MAY have alerted behind the sofa to only blood, although the probability is that it was cadaver. Unless/until confirmed that Eddie ONLY alerts to cadaver odour then it was important to correct the video.

Like many others, I was not aware of this discrepancy but was brought to my attention and I found it important to correct the information.

I am fully aware that many 'casual viewers' do not scrutinise my videos (which can become very overloaded with info) but once brought to my attention that this info existed (as well as the 'argument' was prevalent with pro McCanns) I did my best to rectify the info as soon as I could. Trying to catch a video thats gone out on Twitter is difficult!

If possible, please replace links with the new one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YADIaa-a33o

I believe but am no means certain that Eddie alerts to both blood and cadaver but he alerts in a different way to each. On the scent i think he barks and the blood he freezes.

Something i believe Stella or Candyfloss Over on the other Maddie forum have pointed out previously. Might be worth popping over there to confirm.

I’m not sure just how exactly the dogs might be able to tell the difference between fresh blood and blood and body fluids that are from a deceased person. I do know that when doing forensic analysis of blood the analyst specifically looks for red cells and serum in order to establish the freshness of a sample. It could be down to blood coagulation levels / clotting of serum with the presence of more white cells in the dried blood or body fluid sample. Also when someone stops ventilating / breathing the oxidative process stops, this must change the chemical composition of blood cells and also any other body fluid. This might also be the reason why there is a risk of brain damage when someone is not resuscitated after a few minutes, lack of oxygen in the blood stream to the brain? I'm also not sure if this is all linked to the autolytic cell destruction process that happens. But I’m sure there will be chemical and other biological differences between the blood circulating in our veins and blood that stops circulating which could be what the dogs detect .

Is there a doctor in the house who can explain this better............ not from Rothley preferably.


" Cadaver blood is different from a living person's blood "

"There are differences in the chemical composition between the blood from a cadaver and from a living person. Jose Eduardo Pinto da Costa explains that the distinction is made at the "coagulation" level and also through the presence of white and red blood clots. "Cadaver blood has more white or fibrinous clots", the Forensic Medicine professor tells JN, underlining that this detection is not possible with exams done in Portugal."

Hope that helps ....

and Martin Grimes has indicated that he believes Eddies alerts suggested it was cadaver scent / contaminate. Eddie I believe does only give verbal signals.

ELI wrote:I’m not sure just how exactly the dogs might be able to tell the difference between fresh blood and blood and body fluids that are from a deceased person. I do know that when doing forensic analysis of blood the analyst specifically looks for red cells and serum in order to establish the freshness of a sample. It could be down to blood coagulation levels / clotting of serum with the presence of more white cells in the dried blood or body fluid sample. Also when someone stops ventilating / breathing the oxidative process stops, this must change the chemical composition of blood cells and also any other body fluid. This might also be the reason why there is a risk of brain damage when someone is not resuscitated after a few minutes, lack of oxygen in the blood stream to the brain? I'm also not sure if this is all linked to the autolytic cell destruction process that happens. But I’m sure there will be chemical and other biological differences between the blood circulating in our veins and blood that stops circulating which could be what the dogs detect .

Is there a doctor in the house who can explain this better............ not from Rothley preferably.


" Cadaver blood is different from a living person's blood "

"There are differences in the chemical composition between the blood from a cadaver and from a living person. Jose Eduardo Pinto da Costa explains that the distinction is made at the "coagulation" level and also through the presence of white and red blood clots. "Cadaver blood has more white or fibrinous clots", the Forensic Medicine professor tells JN, underlining that this detection is not possible with exams done in Portugal."

Hope that helps ....

and Martin Grimes has indicated that he believes Eddies alerts suggested it was cadaver scent / contaminate. Eddie I believe does only give verbal signals.

Blood is sprayed or 'bleeds' from a person when they are alive and for a short time after the heart has stopped beating. The dogs are trained to find blood that was spilt at the time of an injury of a living person which could be also just prior to the moment of death. Cadaver blood, bodily fluids, scent on clothes etc would all be detected by Eddie - the cadiaver dog.

Jane Hill (BBC) and Martin Brunt both reported only once....."An early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned a certain blood spray ... commensurate with a certain type of broken larynx"

both articles now removed.

NoStone wrote:

ELI wrote:I’m not sure just how exactly the dogs might be able to tell the difference between fresh blood and blood and body fluids that are from a deceased person. I do know that when doing forensic analysis of blood the analyst specifically looks for red cells and serum in order to establish the freshness of a sample. It could be down to blood coagulation levels / clotting of serum with the presence of more white cells in the dried blood or body fluid sample. Also when someone stops ventilating / breathing the oxidative process stops, this must change the chemical composition of blood cells and also any other body fluid. This might also be the reason why there is a risk of brain damage when someone is not resuscitated after a few minutes, lack of oxygen in the blood stream to the brain? I'm also not sure if this is all linked to the autolytic cell destruction process that happens. But I’m sure there will be chemical and other biological differences between the blood circulating in our veins and blood that stops circulating which could be what the dogs detect .

Is there a doctor in the house who can explain this better............ not from Rothley preferably.


" Cadaver blood is different from a living person's blood "

"There are differences in the chemical composition between the blood from a cadaver and from a living person. Jose Eduardo Pinto da Costa explains that the distinction is made at the "coagulation" level and also through the presence of white and red blood clots. "Cadaver blood has more white or fibrinous clots", the Forensic Medicine professor tells JN, underlining that this detection is not possible with exams done in Portugal."

Hope that helps ....

and Martin Grimes has indicated that he believes Eddies alerts suggested it was cadaver scent / contaminate. Eddie I believe does only give verbal signals.

Blood is sprayed or 'bleeds' from a person when they are alive and for a short time after the heart has stopped beating. The dogs are trained to find blood that was spilt at the time of an injury of a living person which could be also just prior to the moment of death. Cadaver blood, bodily fluids, scent on clothes etc would all be detected by Eddie - the cadiaver dog.

If there are chemical changes in blood cells ( as Jose Eduardo Pinto da Costa suggests) minutes after someone has died that a highly trained dog is able to detect and distinguish between then forensically this would be an important piece of evidence in trying to establish if a person could have died in that location and may even give clues as to how that person could have died.

ann_chovey wrote:Jane Hill (BBC) and Martin Brunt both reported only once....."An early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned a certain blood spray ... commensurate with a certain type of broken larynx"

both articles now removed.

A broken larynx can be fatal because the person would more than likely choke to death.

The removed news bulletins also mentioned the presence of CSF in the forensic reports

duncanmac wrote:The removed news bulletins also mentioned the presence of CSF in the forensic reports

Yes they did.

Rachel Oldfield: 'If you take the common sense approach as well and just look at timings of how things happened and the fact that they're both medics and there are 4 other medics in the group, they would know what to do to resuscitate a child'.

Always puzzled me (why she said this). She's the non-medic, apart from JT and DW. The medics made no comment.

ann_chovey wrote:Jane Hill (BBC) and Martin Brunt both reported only once....."An early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned a certain blood spray ... commensurate with a certain type of broken larynx"

both articles now removed.

like so much stuff that have been removed from the internet , but us nutters do remember them and always will

If I may go off the subject of Madeleine - though keeping to the topic of early reports on an event being whooshed when it transpires that what was said doesn't fit with the official version - here's a link to a BBC report of 9/11 which reported the collapse of the 3rd building at the World Trade Centre before it happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI

I don't think that anyone will ever be able to convince me that that building wasn't brought down by controlled demolition which must have taken weeks to arrange. Early reports from eye witnesses state that bombs were going off in the towers and the 3rd building both before and after the planes hit.

This is substantiated by the famous coverage from the French TV crew which was filming in the street with the fire service and was the only source of live coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. The fire crews were on the scene within minutes and the ground floor was a wreck - impossible if the only thing that had happened then was a plane hitting the building dozens of floors up.

There are various other examples of hastily removed reports from that dreadful day and also from the day of the London bombings in 2005.

Such major hoaxes make me realise that the one involving Madeleine must have been comparatively simple to organise.