Re...cadaver scent

IF you came into contact with a dead body...the clothes you are wearing when this happened, can it be transferred from those clothes to...a bed...or a settee ?

Reason I asked...if kate McCann has found Madeleine dead, then if transference from clothes to furniture, wouldn't cadaver scent off been smelt in the paynes apt?

I'm guessing but I would assume the scent weakens with cross contamination. So if I were to cuddle a body for example then my clothes would have a strong scent. If I then sat on a sofa, for a minute, would there be a very strong scent left behind ? Probably not.

Again an assumption, but if Kate did not wear those clothes to the apartment, then there would be no scent. Or if she walked in and stayed standing, where would the scent transfer to ?

How I would love some time to speak with Martin Grime

This may help...

http://www.scentevidence.com/2008/09/cadaver-dogs-canis-familiaris.html?m=1

Also there has been discussion in the past regarding 'transference'.

Scent can be transferred from one subject to another.


Part of Martin Grimes report to PJ.

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces. The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.

if it could be transferred like that I'd think that their house in Rothley would have caused an alert as well due to kate's contact with bodies in the weeks leading to the PDL holiday.

As would every doctor's or forensic pathologist's home... ew.

Was Kate in the same outfit from the 3rd dinner time to when they came on tv the 4th? Checked pants & top - didn't the dog alert to the clothes as well? they'd have presumably been washed at least once between May and August!

I would think the apt alerts were from where a body had lain and those in the car boot possibly from a wrapping or bag used to move the body... stuffed under the boot mat, it could have had some tiny leakage. The key fob is interesting - found with Gerry's fingerprint.

Why didn't any other clothes have cadaver scent on if one pair off trousers and a t shirt was next to say other clothes ...but they didn't .


YES...i too would love to have a conversation with Mr Grimes.

This is from The ebook Panda put a link to. http://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdf

Showing that cadaver dogs can find evidence even centuries old; that Kate lied about the scent of cadaverine lasting only 30 days - and more.


Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research
attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem
interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity
of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early
postmortem interval.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of
two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any
direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a
time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).
RESULTS:
The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene
investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive
value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
17


From Kate's book:

p. 253
As we now know, the chemicals believed to create the ‘odour of death’, putrescence and
cadaverine, last no longer than thirty days. There were no decaying body parts for the dog to
find. It was simply wrong. [2]


p. 267
By this time Gerry was deep into his next task: researching the validity of responses produced
by blood and cadaver dogs. Along the way he spoke to several experts, and in the coming
weeks we would learn a lot about the subject. This is what one US lawyer had to say about the
objectivity and success rate of this procedure:
The most critical question relating to the use of the dog alerts as evidence is how likely
is the dog’s alert to be correct. In this regard, the only testing of these handler and dog teams
recorded an abysmal performance. Here ‘the basis’ for the possible past presence of human
remains is that there is a 20 or 40 per cent chance that a dog’s ‘alert’ was correct. In other
words, with respect to residual odour, the dog-handler teams performed significantly worse
than if the handlers had simply flipped a coin to speculate as to the presence of residual
odour at each location.

Lies, damned lies and satistics, eh kate? Because the dogs have a hit rate of 92% and above, and you cannot simply go around flipping coins everywhere - the dog just doesn't alert in a spot, it TAKE YOU TO THE SPOT -


State of Wisconsin v. Zapata, 2006 CF 1996 – defendant supplemental memorandum

While the judge ruled the dogs couldn't be used as evidence, the guy actually confessed that they were absolutely correct - everywhere they hit, the body had been. He'd moved it. And the dogs were brought in something like 30 years afterwards!

So they could bring the cadaver dogs back now and check the other apartments to which gerry was given the keys.

OK Andy ?

. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time"

This is from Lioned's post about the scent.

Although the dog barked like mad at the Wardrobe in the McCann apartment, there was no tangible source as far as we know.

Panda wrote:. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time"

This is from Lioned's post about the scent.

Although the dog barked like mad at the Wardrobe in the McCann apartment, there was no tangible source as far as we know.

How the dogs get used is different to how they work - they can find where a body was, even from 2 minutes of contamination, 35 years later - (of course in the Zapata case that cadaver had lain in the spots the dogs hit on for years, not for 2 minutes) but they only show where to look. Without finding evidence there - or a cadaver or part of one - I don't know that they can be used to do much more than advance a particular theory or thesis.

I would have those dogs searching the area where Smith man was walking. If they hid the body there for even a few hours, in some abandoned apt, the dogs could alert. It wouldn't find Madeleine or prove who had laid her there (or even that it was her body) but it could help move the theory along - someone like Gerry put a body here and then it was moved later, where could it have been moved and who moved it?

If not Gerry then who? Why would a kidnapper take a dead body and why return to move it? I mean pretty soon you get tired of inventing reasons why it could have been someone else and start looking more at how the parents who refused a LDT and erased all their messages, could have gotten this done.