Can we talk about Seabass again?

What would be the implications, purporting theories-wise, if Eddie's alerts were to the following:

Seabass dribbled on Kate's pants of ganga and white shirt from gorging on Seabass tapas?
Seabass on Kate's clothes (as above) in the wardrobe of 5a.
Blood behind sofa (was it under a tile?) not related to Madeleine?
Something in the shrubbery not related to Madeleine?
Seabass dribbled on Sean's red aeroplane T-shirt from some later stage in the proceedings?
Seabass on Cuddlecat from being on Kate's lap at all times whilst dribbling Seabass on herself?
Seabass in the boot of Scenic from transporting it from shop (as testified by witness bloke)

Sea bass on the key fob belonging to the car rented 25 days after Madeleine went missing...

kitti wrote:Sea bass on the key fob belonging to the car rented 25 days after Madeleine went missing...

Hi Kitti

Are you saying that this would be ludicrous - or that it's a possibility (that seabass-hands touched the key fob after eating out, for example)?

If the alerts were to seabass, one could purport theories to explain the odd behaviour and testimonies other than that M. died in 5a, ie. that she was removed from 5a by person/s possibly known to the McC's.

or maybe it was a mermaid.

tanszi wrote:or maybe it was a mermaid.

Thanks for this really valuable contribution to my thread.

Is there any real evidence to show that Eddie detects Seabass? He does not detect dead animals or artificial cadaverine and is trained specifically to detect the scent of human remains / cadaver scent / residue.

I looked it up some time ago. I think highly trained dogs will not confuse seabass with human cadaver odour. Most papers I googled were agreed on that.

But I believe that possibly the book on Forensics Gerry was given by Gamble? might have had a passage in it to cover this possibility.

As Gerry often adapted his blog retrospectively, I wonder if the sea bass was inserted after the smell in the car started.
I'd also love to know when that was.

But I believe the seabass comment in the blog is around the beginning of June. It is my conviction that the body was moved in the Renault during the weekend of the 9th/10th June.
On the 9th they were in Sagres with all the family - who'd flown in. If Maddie'd died on the 1st of May, that would make it a neat 40 days for the remembrance observation of duties to the dead in the Catholic church.
On the 10th they flew to Marocco, when they came back there was some statement to the effect that they needed time to grieve and reflect.

ROB and the telephone call with Gerry which is linked to the barn was on the morning of the 10th I believe, Gerry told the PJ it was 4 km away, the PJ know it was about 24 km.

I'll have to have a look, but I'm sure the sea bass comment preceded these events - but if it was inserted later it would fit very neatly.

ELI wrote:Is there any real evidence to show that Eddie detects Seabass ? He does not detect dead animals or artificial cadaverine and is trained specifically to detect the scent of human remains / cadaver scent / residue.

Hi Eli

I don't know, but if one accepts that it's a theoretical possibility, I'm just wondering if it might open up other options when speculating about what went on in 5a.

If Eddie's reaction was to human remains etc. it forces the timeline to include that a body had lain in situ for at least 90 minutes (I believe). If, however, the alert was 'false' this could suggest that the body was disposed of within 90 mins (or whatever it is) of death and makes it more feasible the person seen by the Smith family was GMcC - who's clothing did not trigger an alert because the process creating the cadaver scent had not yet commenced. A death discovered at 9.05pm, for example, followed by a disposal by GMcC at 9.50pm would make the Smiths' sighting more plausible.

Eddie's alert suggests that a body/residue had been present in the Scenic, which has further complicated the issue of the location of the body's final resting place. Take Eddie's alert to the Scenic out of the picture, and we're left with a less confusing set of options.

If one considers that M could have been removed from 5a alive by persons known to the McC's ('They've taken her') other possiblities open up. An aggrieved, possibly Dutch, illegally arranged surrogate mother + accomplice, an aggrieved biological mother + accomplice, reclaiming her natural, illegally adopted, child being two. Was MMcC's ward of court status put in place because there is doubt about her legal guardians?

All I'm trying to put forward here is the suggestion that impressive and highly valuable though they are, the dogs' and their alerts, could have inadvertently thrown we amateur detectives off the scent (no pun intended).

08 Jun 07 36
Quieter day today. This was a good chance to catch up with campaign e-mails and phone calls after the trips to Berlin and Amsterdam. At lunchtime we went to the release of 1000 yellow balloons at the beach carrying cards with Madeleine’s picture on it and information in 5 different languages including arabic. There were similar launches in Manchester and Madrid. The event was organsied by the Sun who, like almost all of the media, have been incredibly supportive. I told Nick, the Sun journalist, that we are happy to support all strategies which increase the chances of finding Madeleine. Later in the afternoon we went down to the beach and had dinner in one of the restaurants which Sean and Amelie really enjoyed. Sean, in particular has acquired a taste for sea-bass! Kate and I did a short interview for BBC East Midlands to thank everyone for their support and it is likely that this will be shown around most of the regions, certainly Northwest and BBC Scotland. Kate and most of the family headed down to the church for the regular Friday night vigil but I was just too shattered. Tommorrow will largely be a family day although I am not sure what we will be doing yet.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id13.html

If Sean, in particular was enjoying SB, this suggests others were enjoying it too. Given that the children weren't eating with their parents in restauarants until after M's disappearance, it's possible (and likely, I think) that one or both parents were already enjoying SB and it was introduced to the children (if, indeed it was) after May 3rd.

So if the parents were eating it, was it being served and consumed at the Tapas restaurant?

Wintabells wrote:

ELI wrote:Is there any real evidence to show that Eddie detects Seabass ? He does not detect dead animals or artificial cadaverine and is trained specifically to detect the scent of human remains / cadaver scent / residue.

Hi Eli

I don't know, but if one accepts that it's a theoretical possibility, I'm just wondering if it might open up other options when speculating about what went on in 5a.

If Eddie's reaction was to human remains etc. it forces the timeline to include that a body had lain in situ for at least 90 minutes (I believe). If, however, the alert was 'false' this could suggest that the body was disposed of within 90 mins (or whatever it is) of death and makes it more feasible the person seen by the Smith family was GMcC - who's clothing did not trigger an alert because the process creating the cadaver scent had not yet commenced. A death discovered at 9.05pm, for example, followed by a disposal by GMcC at 9.50pm would make the Smiths' sighting more plausible.

Eddie's alert suggests that a body/residue had been present in the Scenic, which has further complicated the issue of the location of the body's final resting place. Take Eddie's alert to the Scenic out of the picture, and we're left with a less confusing set of options.

If one considers that M could have been removed from 5a alive by persons known to the McC's ('They've taken her') other possiblities open up. An aggrieved, possibly Dutch, illegally arranged surrogate mother + accomplice, an aggrieved biological mother + accomplice, reclaiming her natural, illegally adopted, child being two. Was MMcC's ward of court status put in place because there is doubt about her legal guardians?

All I'm trying to put forward here is the suggestion that impressive and highly valuable though they are, the dogs' and their alerts, could have inadvertently thrown we amateur detectives off the scent (no pun intended).

I don't know about Seabass but I can't imagine that a fish would create the same scent signature as a human being. It might and probably does create cadaverine but so do many other things. I think what makes this particular dog unique is that it is trained on a whole scent signature. There are aprox.478 known different compounds created with the human decomposition process and it is a combination of those which the dog is trained to detect. Fish won't decompose the same as humans.

The 90 min that a body lay in situ is an estimation taken from trials done using a piece of material exposed to a dead body/cadaver and the 90 min exposure time resulted in the most detections. This has led people to believe that it takes 90 mins for a human to decompose and contaminate someting. However this may fall down unless we know for certain how long that person had been deceased, ie was it 90 mins or was it 30 mins or less? The human decomposition process is the key and this, and it is an ongoing process which goes through various different stages, the first known as the Fresh stage. It has been proven that dogs can and have detected a body at this stage and the dogs reactions have been documented. The Fresh stage, depending on environmental factors/conditions starts aprox. 5 to 15 mins following clinical death.

From
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/AGR/IND43628664
Cadaverine was not detected before day 9 in whole and gutted sea bass samples and before day 11 in filleted samples.
Unquote.

I read a couple of this type of article.

Portugal is a country where fresh, very fresh fish is consumed daily. I think it highly unlikely that sea bass could have contaminated 5a and various articles of clothing. The locals wouldn't dream of eating 'old' fish.
Added to that - I can't see Kate cooking sea bass, she never mentions cooking and I'm presuming she doesn't much. It is likely that they would eat this game fish in a restaurant or when invited to dinner somewhere.

How could the scent of seabass - which isn't likely to have been on the menu at a Tapas bar - get into 5a, in the flowerbed and particularly in the wardrobe?



8th of June we get the sea bass in the blog. If the body was disposed of about the 10th, then on their return on the 11th the smell would already be apparent. Plenty of time to adjust the blog. Gerry likes to think he's clever when he's just being a trickster.

Imo the body was removed on the 2nd of May at the latest. There is no firm evidence that placed Maddie anywhere in OC on the 3rd. The 2nd is a day both K and G studiously avoid mentioning. See Dr. Roberts' 30 days, article, 2011.

The 3rd was staged, there simply was no time to fit in all the planning, decision making, finding a hiding place and so on in the time available.
Imo too, the Smiths sighting was Gerry with a live girl, being seen as an abductor to get an independent sighting in addition to the one by JT.

Added: Michael Wright I believe, was the friend who commented on the smell in the car, but I believe he blamed dirty nappies - pretty sure never mentioned sea bass. Rotting meat was the McCanns excuse I think. So who was the one mentioned sea bass in the boot? Set up by Gerry to pass this on?

Let us suppose it was sea bass, why then was it the McCann's belongings and apartment, and only theirs that had the scent ? Were they the only people in PDL eating sea bass ? Surely if it were sea bass then the dogs would have been going nuts in a seaside resort with seabass odour everywhere.

tigger wrote:From
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/AGR/IND43628664
Cadaverine was not detected before day 9 in whole and gutted sea bass samples and before day 11 in filleted samples.
Unquote.

I read a couple of this type of article.

Portugal is a country where fresh, very fresh fish is consumed daily. I think it highly unlikely that sea bass could have contaminated 5a and various articles of clothing. The locals wouldn't dream of eating 'old' fish.
Added to that - I can't see Kate cooking sea bass, she never mentions cooking and I'm presuming she doesn't much. It is likely that they would eat this game fish in a restaurant or when invited to dinner somewhere.

How could the scent of seabass - which isn't likely to have been on the menu at a Tapas bar - get into 5a, in the flowerbed and particularly in the wardrobe?

8th of June we get the sea bass in the blog. If the body was disposed of about the 10th, then on their return on the 11th the smell would already be apparent. Plenty of time to adjust the blog. Gerry likes to think he's clever when he's just being a trickster.

Imo the body was removed on the 2nd of May at the latest. There is no firm evidence that placed Maddie anywhere in OC on the 3rd. The 2nd is a day both K and G studiously avoid mentioning. See Dr. Roberts' 30 days, article, 2011.

The 3rd was staged, there simply was no time to fit in all the planning, decision making, finding a hiding place and so on in the time available.
Imo too, the Smiths sighting was Gerry with a live girl, being seen as an abductor to get an independent sighting in addition to the one by JT.

Interesting theory about the 3rd being staged and an earlier death and removal. I also think that if she died then their medical training would have kicked in and the area where a death occurred would have been clinically cleaned and the body properly attended to, which order I'm not sure of, the cleaning of the area first or attending to the body first. This is one reason why I can't imagine Gerry Mc walking around with a body.

mossman wrote:Let us suppose it was sea bass, why then was it the McCann's belongings and apartment, and only theirs that had the scent ? Were they the only people in PDL eating sea bass ? Surely if it were sea bass then the dogs would have been going nuts in a seaside resort with seabass odour everywhere.

Yes I agree, the canine team checked other apartments so why was nothing detected in those places.

ELI wrote: I don't know about Seabass but I can't imagine that a fish would create the same scent signature as a human being. It might and probably does create cadaverine but so do many other things. I think what makes this particular dog unique is that it is trained on a whole scent signature. There are aprox.478 known different compounds created with the human decomposition process and it is a combination of those which the dog is trained to detect. Fish won't decompose the same as humans.

The 90 min that a body lay in situ is an estimation taken from trials done using a piece of material exposed to a dead body/cadaver and the 90 min exposure time resulted in the most detections. This has led people to believe that it takes 90 mins for a human to decompose and contaminate someting. However this may fall down unless we know for certain how long that person had been deceased, ie was it 90 mins or was it 30 mins or less? The human decomposition process is the key and this, and it is an ongoing process which goes through various different stages, the first known as the Fresh stage. It has been proven that dogs can and have detected a body at this stage and the dogs reactions have been documented. The Fresh stage, depending on environmental factors/conditions starts aprox. 5 to 15 mins following clinical death.

Hi ELI

Lots of info here that I didn't know before and thankyou.

[quote="tigger"]From
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/AGR/IND43628664
Cadaverine was not detected before day 9 in whole and gutted sea bass samples and before day 11 in filleted samples.
Unquote.

I read a couple of this type of article.

Portugal is a country where fresh, very fresh fish is consumed daily. I think it highly unlikely that sea bass could have contaminated 5a and various articles of clothing. The locals wouldn't dream of eating 'old' fish.

Hi Tigger

Not really suggesting they would be eating 'old' fish, but that the levels of cadaverine in seabass seem to depend on whether the fish is wrapped in cling film, aluminium foil or stored in ice. Assuming the seabass consumed by the family wasn't caught and cooked immediately, it could have contained cadaverine in some degree, but I have NO idea about the science of any of it.

Added to that - I can't see Kate cooking sea bass, she never mentions cooking Kate does mention cooking in an interview (possibly the first radio one she did) and the food brought back from the shop in the Scenic which allegedly leaked into the boot was clearly intended for cooking

and I'm presuming she doesn't much. It is likely that they would eat this game fish in a restaurant or when invited to dinner somewhere.

How could the scent of seabass - which isn't likely to have been on the menu at a Tapas bar

seabass is a very common dish (including Tapas) in Portugal according to google. -

get into 5a, in the flowerbed the scent which interested Eddie in the flowerbed wasn't necessarily seabass, but M Grimes remarked that this alert wasn't a strong one.

and particularly in the wardrobe? as I said in my post, via Kate's clothing.


8th of June we get the sea bass in the blog. If the body was disposed of about the 10th, then on their return on the 11th the smell would already be apparent. Plenty of time to adjust the blog. Gerry likes to think he's clever when he's just being a trickster.

Imo the body was removed on the 2nd of May at the latest. There is no firm evidence that placed Maddie anywhere in OC on the 3rd. The 2nd is a day both K and G studiously avoid mentioning. See Dr. Roberts' 30 days, article, 2011.

The 3rd was staged, there simply was no time to fit in all the planning, decision making, finding a hiding place and so on in the time available. Imo too, the Smiths sighting was Gerry with a live girl, being seen as an abductor to get an independent sighting in addition to the one by JT. Interesting theory.

Added: Michael Wright I believe, was the friend who commented on the smell in the car, but I believe he blamed dirty nappies - pretty sure never mentioned sea bass. He mentioned fish, meat and seafood

Rotting meat was the McCanns excuse I think. So who was the one mentioned sea bass in the boot? no-one specifically.

Set up by Gerry to pass this on?

Thanks for your thoughts - lots to think about here.

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:Let us suppose it was sea bass, why then was it the McCann's belongings and apartment, and only theirs that had the scent ? Were they the only people in PDL eating sea bass ? Surely if it were sea bass then the dogs would have been going nuts in a seaside resort with seabass odour everywhere.

Yes I agree, the canine team checked other apartments so why was nothing detected in those places.

WASN'T IT DETECTED IN TWO OTHER APARTMENTS?

Badboy wrote:

ELI wrote:

mossman wrote:Let us suppose it was sea bass, why then was it the McCann's belongings and apartment, and only theirs that had the scent ? Were they the only people in PDL eating sea bass ? Surely if it were sea bass then the dogs would have been going nuts in a seaside resort with seabass odour everywhere.

Yes I agree, the canine team checked other apartments so why was nothing detected in those places.

WASN'T IT DETECTED IN TWO OTHER APARTMENTS?

I'm not aware that the dogs detected anything in any other apartments.


OPERATION TASK CANINE DEPLOYMENTS 1-8 AUGUST 2007

All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications
were at apartment 5a, the reported scene.

is there anything anywhere other than G s blog which confirms seabass was consumed by any or all of the family.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm

snipped from a much longer document in 03 Processos, volume III Pages 762 to 765 and pertaining to the Portuguese sniffer dogs not Eddie and Keela:



The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
- He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
- The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.

tanszi wrote:is there anything anywhere other than G s blog which confirms seabass was consumed by any or all of the family.

no.

Wintabells wrote:http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm

snipped from a much longer document in 03 Processos, volume III Pages 762 to 765 and pertaining to the Portuguese sniffer dogs not Eddie and Keela:



The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
- He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds.It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
- The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.

These dogs are scent tracking only & have no training in finding blood residues or cadaverine,its not a surprise these portuguese dogs could of scented Madeleine in the Mccanns friends apartments,the Mccanns gave a towel as a source of scent...needs to be taken into consideration

Wasn't there a suspicion by the GNR that the towel had Gerry's scent on it? Because the dogs also traced a trip to the supermarket and back, which Gerry had made the previous day.
The pink blanket must already have disappeared for the scent dogs would have been much better informed with that item.

@Wintabells.
Once the seabass is cooked, I would assume that cadaverine will not be present. So unless they were in close contact at one time with an uncooked more than a week old sea bass - I really think it cannot be an issue.
As another poster said, they wouldn't be the only ones having this expensive game fish (v. expensive in the UK not in Portugal) in the whole of the resort.
If they had it in the Tapas they'd hardly be the only ones during the holiday with 7 others.

Once analysed, the DNA in the boot has no mention of any other substance than human DNA.

Seabass is typical of the half-witted excuses TM have come up with all along the line.

I spent some time googling last night about the subject of cadaverine and sea bass. From what I can gather, and obviously I have no way of knowing if the papers read are reliable, cadaverine odour in tiny quantities may start to appear from un-cooked sea bass, from day 9 onwards. So 9 days of stroage before cooking and eating it, poor Sean !

Interestingly a number of articles mentioned 9 to 11 days, none I found discussed anything less than 9 days. They all appeared in agreement with that.

I have never given the sea bass story a second thought, other than it being one of those things planted by GMcC as an explanation for the future. Rather like the stain on the pj top Kate talked about. It could be thrown in during a talk show, to cloud the unsuspecting public's judgement, if the need arose.

To my mind, if there were real issues that could confuse these dogs, they would be clearly stated in the reports produced by the likes of Mr Grimes. They reports would have some sort of disclaimer attached to list the different possibilities that might occur and confuse the dogs. As far as I can see there is no such list.