We know we said in our post “Cadaver compound” that we were going on summer break. We did go and are on a break. A long break as all summer breaks are.
We didn’t expect to return so soon, especially taking into account the wall of silence around the case in comparison with just a year ago, but we felt we had to.
The reason being that we consider the EVRD and blood dogs that were in Praia da Luz in 2007, Eddie and Keela respectively, to be of pivotal importance to the outing of the truth and they deserve that we share the laptop with the sun as an exception.
We have noticed that lately the dogs are being put, very subtly, in question.
For example, confusing a tracking dog with an EVRD one by anyone familiar with the Maddie case, is not innocent.
We are writing this post not because of the urgency or its immediate importance but out of opportunity.
To write this post after coming back from a summer break we would be asking our readers to make an extra effort to recollect what has been said. This is why we’re doing it now.
It follows our posts “Cadaverine” and “Cadaver compound” and seeks to nip in the bud misinformation about what the dogs have revealed for us about this case.
2. Barking dogs and insult
Insane is our most visible and overt detractor.
He has created a blog exclusively dedicated to us. He started it 2 years ago, in June 2013 and has put in it, according to last count, 140 posts.
Years before that he stalked the blog with the kind of comments that have become his trademark: abusive.
Literally, years dedicated to us.
That means he’s not moved just by some sort of a fleeting anger but rather shows a continuous effort to detract from us.
An effort with a mission, emotion has nothing to do with it. Insane, although a very impulsive individual is driven by reason, a purpose.
One must then understand his mission.
The vast majority of our readers find the character abhorrent and annoying. He is both and then much more than that. However, and this is fundamental, nothing pleases him more than realising people find him to be so.
That’s exactly what he wants to achieve.
He wants to spread unpleasantness. He wants the air here to be so thick that people will simply avoid it and not return. Thus his vitriolic, rude, arrogant and misogynistic abuse. It has to be that way. It has to hit hard. It has to be aggressive, it has to drive people away.
When one is confronted with such aggression, even if one doesn’t firmly agree with it (we have noted that a few have publicly expressed they find his blog interesting), one cannot help but link Textusa's name to gratuitous verbal aggression in the back of one's mind even if we had absolutely nothing to do with it.
If one has to make a choice of which path to choose between one that passes by a vicious dog that barks madly while throwing himself at the gate and another that has no such audible and violent aggression, which one would the reader choose to take?
Note the dog causes no harm whatsoever as he’s behind gates. He’s simply being unpleasant, viciously very unpleasant. Because of it one tends to avoid passing by him as much as possible.
Insane is the vicious dog 3 or 4 doors down our block.
There was no one there, he was the one who created the menace because he wanted a menace there, to drive people away.
This technique is replicated almost everywhere in various corners of the internet by less overt “Insanes” without the overt aggression.
In this case the aggression takes the form of ridiculing, one used by bullies to balance their lack of argument.
Readers there find us to be unpleasant but cannot pinpoint a reason, not realising that it is the fruit of the accumulated bullying of our opinions for no reason other than to ridicule.
This has been very effective.
We have found ourselves being subject to a murky kind of unspoken censorship implemented by those who shout outraged, and rightly so, against the censorship, unspoken but implemented that Mr Amaral has been subjected to by an unwritten gagging order in the UK.
People seem to be afraid, with few gratifying exceptions, to repeat our opinion. Many when expressing it do it an apologetic manner as if they’re speaking on behalf of the devil at an angel gathering.
Interesting to see how some find it absolutely preposterous and scandalous to even dare think how a large group of people (not the high-powered politicians but the Ocean Club and Mark Warner workers and ex-pats) would lie or maintain the lie in a cover-up to protect the reputation of those we say were swinging that week, but find it perfectly acceptable and logical that the same group of people can lie to protect a man who is said to have raped and killed a 4yr old, something we have repeatedly said we don't believe happened.
For them, it is evident that a mother-in-law would never come along for adult fun but there’s nothing wrong for her to have a nepiophile for a son-in-law. Nor for the entire family of the victim to close ranks around the murderer.
We want to make it very clear that we think only a very small group of people outside the T9 took part in the concealment of the body.
The vast majority of those we think were there swinging were confronted with the situation and went along with it in the days that followed as their reputation was also on the line and they felt needed protection.
Do note how Insane reacts with absolute disgust when we “accuse” – one cannot accuse anyone else of doing something completely legal – others of swinging but does not utter a single word against those who accuse others of paedophilia, a horrific crime.
To be pointed out as a swinger is horrible but to be pointed out a paedo, well, one just has to tough it out and move on.
For us to show how someone has lied and to say we think they did it to protect their own reputation (even if not the case) is for us to be criminal deserving to be burnt at the stake, but for others to say that others lie to protect a man who killed and raped a little girl (even if he didn’t) is understandable.
Insane does not turn on the paedo theory because the paedo thesis serves his purpose.
It’s a passionate subject that generates the most intense emotions – and rightly so – but it is also one that blinds people. It intoxicates and it adheres easily like cadaverine and like cadaverine is almost impossible to wash away.
Blinded people will not be able to see the truth nor find it. If one doesn't want people to smell the scent of a rose one just has to place under their noses a rotting fish and paedophilia is one that really stinks.
About paedophilia let us express here and now that we think it be one of the most, if not the most endemic problem facing the UK today. A vile cancer that eats the nation away because it seems to run in the corridors of power and influence where it finds the disgusting nepotistic protection it needs to continue.
A sickening problem that needs an urgent and radical panacea.
That said, we’re absolutely certain paedophilia had nothing to do with Maddie’s death.
3. How pleasant it is to be “unpleasant” then
The label of being unpleasant which we recognise has been stuck on our forehead by a well-orchestrated campaign is not something that displeases us. On the contrary, it really pleases us.
For us to speak about it, is not to complain about it but only to let our readers know that we are not missing it.
It pleases us because it produces the opposite of the pretended effect and helps us get the readers we really want to have, the true independent thinkers. Those not fooled and not easily disheartened.
We trust readers are able to see through the transparent wording used against us, overtly or otherwise.
They can see how we detail things and fully explain the logic behind our opinions and the only reason they can find for conclusions not to be taken on board by others is simply because they have originated here.
Those who choose to pass in front of “Insane’s gate” knowing they have to endure the vicious barking and yet insist on passing show us these tactics instead of driving people away are attracting them.
These readers can see, we hope, the transparency in our effort to help find the truth in an affair filled with so much misinformation and with so many egos interfering.
They may not agree with us, and many don’t, but they show they want to accompany us in our journey.
Is there a greater honour? No, there isn’t and words cannot express our gratitude.
It’s this choice made by our readers that makes us stronger, going full circle. Insane and others drive away those who don’t matter, but they make the number of those who do to increase and that in turn makes us more motivated than ever.
4. The barking dog
Insane is an individual who shows he has profound knowledge of the case and in all relevant matters pertaining to the affair.
Only with that profound knowledge is one able to seriously misinform, distract and distort. The little fish from the other side stay clear away from us and do their thing in their dark little ponds.
We have not elected Insane, Insane has elected us.
To be clear, we have no respect for the individual. We used to find him occasionally amusing but not after this:
His words: “The staff were getting wise to Textusa, and had drawn a map of her favourite toileting spots”.
Independent of us being right or wrong, these 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) clearly represent locations of little Maddie’s body.
All those following the case link, agreeing or disagreeing, those 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) to Maddie's body.
Insane, as will be shown in this post, trusts in Eddie's (cadaver dog) accuracy and agrees fully that those 3 locations (living-room, bedroom and backyard) are where this EVRD dog marked cadaver odour.
To refer to them as “toileting spots” is an insult to the little girl’s memory.
Words to reprimand such an insult have yet to be invented, much less qualify it.
It makes the word sicko cross one's mind but even that one falls short.
It shows the kind of individual we’re up against and it shows how the other side needs to resort to such disgraceful tactics. The concept of a conscience is unknown to them.
To us, for Insane to possess such a degree of commitment demonstrates first-hand knowledge about what really happened. We are not saying he had a direct participation in Maddie’s death and the immediate following hours but in all else that followed.
His first-hand knowledge can be, as is has been, very helpful to us all.
For instance, the discussion in the last few posts involving the marking by the EVRD dog has proved to be invaluable.
Thanks to Insane we achieved much more than we had ever hoped for.
It started with us wanting to prove a single point: the absence of Eddie (cadaver dog) marking does not rule out the possibility of the body having been in Murat’s property on the night of the 3rd.
Insane agrees with us: “Proved what, precisely? That any location, anywhere in the world, where a cadaver dog has not alerted could be the location of her body?”
Almost perfect score if only he had used “the” instead of an “a”: we proved any location, anywhere in the world, where THE cadaver dog has not alerted could be the location of her body.
It does narrow things down because there weren’t that many properties that the cadaver dog searched in Praia da Luz in 2007.
All locations Eddie (cadaver dog) searched and in which he didn’t alert could have been the location where the body could have been. And among these, Murat’s property is one.
But the interesting part of Insane’s response was his insistence in trying to prove that what Eddie (cadaver dog) alerted to was the result of only an airborne contamination by a gas, which he called cadaver odour.
Insane minimises our conclusion because he says we didn't read the paper on the carpet square experiment which he reputes to be of prime importance about EVRD dogs. He first brings this up in his response to our post “Cadaverine” in his blog:
About the experiment he boasts “So you haven't read the paper, then? Despite the fact that I sent you a link to it?”
Insane seems to quickly forget what he does.
We never said we read the paper. We stated clearly where we sourced from. What we sourced, was from people who we are sure, read the paper. What we found was enough for us to understand how the experiment was done as well as to understand what its objectives were.
We will explain why we didn’t read the paper but first let’s see if Insane provided, or not, a link to the paper as he claims:
“This is completely incorrect. See this paper - Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares. Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
In this study, carpet tiles were used as the medium to 'capture' the odours produced by a recently deceased cadaver. The tiles were never in direct contact with the cadaver, so the transmission of cadaver odour was airborne.
This is a paper of central and vital importance in this case. The fact that you clearly haven't read it speaks volumes about your lack of research.”
It’s a link to the blog Dogs Don't Lie not to “the paper”.
For Insane it seems, according to his words, that blogs are places beneath him for any kind of research so we don’t understand why he pointed one to us.
To say he provided us the link to the paper is to lie.
We note that although he claims to have read the paper but hasn’t made to date a single quote from it. We very much doubt he’s read it.
We think he's only read this passage posted on JH Forum which we think is a quote from the paper:
“Two deceased individuals, a 60-year-old male (A) and a 63-year-old male (B) were admitted to the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg. They were immediately transported to a tent placed within the inner courtyard of the institute. The location for this investigation was specifically chosen in order to minimize a potential cross contamination of any odors with those of stored, putrefied bodies within the Institute. Both men (A and B) had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively.
Brand new carpet squares 20 cm _ 20 cm were purchased and used as the medium for the odor transport. Before the initiation of this investigation, the carpet squares were stored in airtight containers outside the boundaries of the Institute of Legal Medicine.
The two bodies were placed in a supine position on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual. A total of 32 carpet squares were placed subsequently underneath the backside of the torsos. Within 45 min of the arrival at the institute, 24 carpet squares (body A) were ‘‘contaminated’’ for 10 min during three consecutive sessions. Within 15 min of arriving at the institute, eight other carpet squares (body B) were contaminated for 2 min during two subsequent sessions. Additionally, living individuals who denied having had any contact with deceased tissues served as control subjects and contaminated an additional eight carpet squares. Immediately following the contamination, the carpet squares were placed into airtight glass jars and brought to the Police Dog Training Center (LPS 36) at the Hamburg State Police Department.”
The reason we haven’t read the paper is because one has to pay to read it. It’s available here:
We quoted all the publicly available information from this site as the reader can verify in our post “Cadaver compound”. The rest only after paying $31.50 USD.
We trust in the words of those we are certain read it, namely Cat Warren who wrote the book “What the Dog Knows: Scent, Science, and the Amazing Ways Dogs Perceive the World”.
The sources we read focused on the fact that the experiment had the following objective: after carpet squares contaminated by pressure of blanket wrapped cadavers, verify if EVRD dogs marked them or not.
We saw no need and until proven otherwise still don't think it necessary to purchase access to the paper. It will inform us of scientific detail that we do not repute as necessary to understand that the cadavers contaminated the blankets and that the blankets in turn contaminated the carpet squares.
6. “Airpressure” contamination
Let’s see how Insane adamantly concludes that the square carpet experiment was only, and only about proving airborne contamination:
“Unfortunately for Textusa, the Transmission IS airborne. There was no physical contact between the cadaver and the scent collection media - the tiles. The bodies were dry, with an intact skin. There was only one puncture wound, from an IV, and that was covered with a dressing prior to the study. The maximum time of exposure to the environment was 10 minutes; far too brief for any breakdown of the skin. Therefore the only means of contamination of the carpet tiles was airborne.”
Insane has a serious memory problem. He forgot he says this too:
“No, they had post mortem intervals of 110 minutes and 120 minutes”.
Those 110/120 minutes post mortem just throw out the window his “The maximum time of exposure to the environment was 10 minutes; far too brief for any breakdown of the skin”
The 10 minutes was the maximum time the blanket wrapped cadavers laid on, or exposed to, the carpet squares after around 2 hours after death having passed, was enough time to allow for “breakdown of the skin” and that of all other organs.
That is not even being specious.
This is creating a fact where it doesn’t exist for the convenience of distorting what the 10 minutes were about. This is to lie using factual information by giving it a different meaning than the one it has.
A conclusion based on an invented premise that doesn’t exist is hardly a scientific one and he does claim to be a scientist.
If Insane was a banker as he says he’s a scientist, his bank wouldn’t see a penny of our money.
Later in the post we will show why Insane needs the cadaver odour to appear so quickly.
We find it extremely hard to see an airborne contamination happening where there are no air passages. The cadaver is in direct contact with blanket, so no air between them and nor is there between the blanket and the carpet square as they are in direct contact with each other.
Plus, it seems pretty evident to us that contamination occurs by direct contact via weight pressure exerted by contaminants, the blanket wrapped cadavers, and intended receptors, the carpet squares.
Wouldn’t logic determine that if it was any sort of air contamination to be tested for the squares to be placed at various distances from the cadavers and not placed beneath them?
One would expect the experiment to have been done with the cadavers both wrapped and unwrapped in blankets, to establish the differences between them if airborne contamination was indeed the question.
To see the carpet square experiment as one about airborne contamination is to see the milk van as the space shuttle just because both are painted white.
Please note that the scientists of the carpet square experiment did not place the cadaver directly in contact the squares, which would constitute the nearest replica to the Maddie case, most probably because it seemed evident to them the dogs would mark the squares without hesitation and that their marking would be obviously accurate.
To the scientists, what Eddie (cadaver dog) marked (direct contact between body and contaminated surface) is so evidently accurate that it doesn't need an experiment to validate it.
7. Gas v other states
But Insane forces airborne contamination for a reason. He needs, as the reader will see, for there not to be any residue vestige.
A residue vestige would be a fountain from which airborne molecules would be released and Insane needs for the molecules to arrive where they arrived coming from somewhere else. We will explain later why.
To have molecules arrive from somewhere else he needs for 2 things to have happened.
The first is that Insane needs the origin of the airborne molecules of the odour to be gaseous. Its origin must be gaseous. For Insane the cadaver cannot have left behind any physical vestige of its decomposition besides its airborne molecules otherwise the location where the body had been could be determined which would invalidate the thesis of molecules being there but having come from somewhere else.
If a compound is anything but gaseous then it could leave residues when contaminating and Insane doesn't want that to be possible,
The second, as a corollary to the first, is that he needs that ALL decomposing contamination by the cadaver to be airborne. No other kind of contamination is possible to support the origin of the odour to be gaseous.
There are 2 ways to go about misinforming about the properties of something and both involve exaggeration. One is to exaggerate what something can’t do and the other to exaggerate what it can.
In this case Insane exaggerates about what the airborne molecules detected by Eddie (cadaver dog) are capable of doing.
He starts by mystifying how the odour is synthesised. There’s no such thing as a cadaver compound he states adamantly. It’s all only gas nothing but gas. And in capital letters to make sure we all understand that perfectly well:
“IT IS A GAS WHEN PRODUCED BY A DECOMPOSING CORPSE, (censored).
(...) The body does not synthesize pure, liquid cadaverine. This has been explained to you about ten times.”
Note how he is insistent about it not being a syrupy liquid or anything else but just an odour:
“I have named it countless times, but you are too (censored) ignorant to take it on board
It is not ''Cadaver Compound''
''Compound'' has a specific scientific meaning, so to call it that is incorrect. Call it Cadaver odour or the odour of decomposition”
He brings into the debate the concept of “pure form”.
As far as we know, the pure form of something is that something not mixed up with anything else.
When something is not 100% pure it means it has an additive. It's that something plus, however little, is something else.
If cadaverine, in pure form is a syrupy liquid and putrescine, in pure form is equally syrupy then the resulting compound of the 2 can only be syrupy. These are the 2 main elements from where that particular odour originates.
But there are at least 6 reasons why it can’t be a gas (speaking about the substance that emits the odour and not the odour itself which by definition has to gaseous):
#1 - Our daily experience
We all have witnessed in our lives the decomposition process of perishables. We can see it, and we can see it on whatever is putrefying so we can see that it’s not gas.
Some decomposition processes of our perishables are almost odourless while others emit an unbearable smell. But one thing is the smell which is gaseous, the other is what is causing it, or the source of that smell and that is not a gas.
#2 - The internet
We researched the internet about Cadaverine. Visited many sites, some even technically scientific. None mention cadaverine being synthesised in gas form by the human body or speak of having a pure form or any other.
However many do refer to it being a syrupy liquid.
#3 – Basic science says it can’t be a gas.
We have seen that science has been unable to determine the composition of something that causes the odour. It's been unable to do that due to the complexity of whatever that something is.
Let's be very clear, it is something.
We have called it a compound but it may be a solution.
In a compound there’s a chemical reaction between elements while in a solution the different substances in the mixture they don’t react with one another.
Let’s be simplistic again. Let’s suppose that something is made up of only the 2 substances we know are present in it: cadaverine and putrescine. Whatever we say about these 2 substances will also apply to all the other substances present in that something. We have read there are around 400 of them in the various stages of decomposition.
The body does not produce 2-in-1 substances. Although it produces cadaverine and putrescine simultaneously, it produces them separately. It doesn't produce a cadavrescine or a putreverine, it produces cadaverine AND putrescine.
What happens next we don’t know. We do know these 2 substances “meet” somewhere but we don't know if they react with each other when they do. If they form new substance or if each retain their “individuality” when together.
If they become a new substance then it will be a compound, if they just mix with each other then it will be a solution. The fact that both are referred to individually as cadaverine and putrescine is an indication that we are encountering solution when it comes to the interaction between just these 2 substances.
Gas and liquid are both not rigid and both have no fixed shape, but the latter has one thing that the first doesn’t: a fixed volume.
This means that in a liquid there's fixed concentration of its elements in the mixture while that doesn't happen in gaseous mixtures.
To better understand this let's use a wine as an example. Please imagine you have in front of you 3 bottles of wine: 1 merlot, 1 cabernet sauvignon and the other a pinot noir.
If one fills up a glass with equal portions of the 3, the resulting mixture will produce a wine with a distinct aroma.
If the reader repeats this process and puts the exact same portions (quantities, in practical terms) in a different glass, then that exact same odour will be repeated.
To do this 1,000 times is to obtain 1,000 times the exact same aroma.
The aroma that is released by this mixture of wines will be a constant one as long as the proportionality between the 3 different wines is maintained.
This happens because liquid has a fixed volume. This consistency is impossible to obtain when one mixes up 2 or more gases.
If cadaverine and putrescine were synthesized in gas form there would be no way of keeping stable the proportion of each element in the gaseous mix. We would end up having completely different levels of concentration of molecules per substance per unit of volume, as the quantities of each would vary randomly between different points of a volume.
If one now brings into the picture all the other elements besides cadaverine and putrescine, which could be up to around 400, then one can easily understand that the possibilities for the resulting odour are almost limitless.
But with liquids, the quantities of elements is irrelevant. In the wine analogy, if one mixes 400 wines instead of only 3, as long as the proportions of each that is put into the glass is constant one can repeat the aroma with precision in such a complex mixture.
The constancy of proportions of each of the 400 substances involved in the various stages of decomposition present in the complex mixture that produces the odour for which the EVRD dog is trained to react is assured by the chemical process by which all are being produced separately but simultaneously.
It's a very complex mixture but the odour that results from it is unique.
EVRD dogs are trained for the unique odours produced by human death.
If both cadaverine and putrescine were to be made in gas form in a decomposing body, each substance would release its molecules independently from the other.
The molecules of one element would float to one side while the molecules of the other would go somewhere else. This dispersion would also happen with each of all the other many substances present.
The number of possible odours would be close to infinite simply depending on the number of molecules of each of the around 400 substances going up the dog's nostrils every time he inhaled.
The resulting randomness would render useless the EVRD dogs.
For the odour to be unique and so recognisable by the EVRD dog it can only originate from a liquid compound/solution made up with constant concentrations of its elements.
Only in that case will its emitted airborne molecules or VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) produce one and only one distinct odour, recognised by the EVRD dog.
#4 – Martin Grime says it's not
Says Martin Grime:
“’Dead body scent’ cannot be removed by cleaning. The compounds [don’t say that Martin, someone will be really very upset] adhere to surfaces. The scent can be ‘masked’ by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog’s olfactory system is able to separate odour and identify specific compounds [saying compound again, Martin??] and mixes to a cellular level.”
We wonder how Insane thinks airborne molecules can be cleaned. We’re sure it must be done a molecule a time. One grabs a molecule from the air and gives it a good polish.
Only a source from where VOCs are emitted can be cleaned. Clean that vestige and the emission ends and the airborne molecules dissipate naturally.
Or one can attempt to clean. In case of this compound it's almost impossible to clean the source once a surface is contaminated.
#5 – Martin Grime and Wikipedia say it's not
Says Martin Grime:
“The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through ’volatile compounds’ that in certain configurations are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditional response ’ALERT’. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds [Martin Grime, last warning. Stop misbehaving] cannot be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the by ’alert’ by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.”
Says Wikipedia about Volatile Organic Compounds:
“Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are organic chemicals that have a high vapor pressure at ordinary room temperature. Their high vapor pressure results from a low boiling point, which causes large numbers of molecules to evaporate or sublimate from the liquid or solid form of the compound [et tu, Wikipedia????] and enter the surrounding air. For example, formaldehyde, which evaporates from paint, has a boiling point of only –19 °C (–2 °F).
VOCs are numerous, varied, and ubiquitous. They include both human-made and naturally occurring chemical compounds. Most scents or odours are of VOCs.”
#6 – The cadaver
In the decomposition, and speaking only of cadaverine, there is the emission of gas in minimal quantities
Cadaverine is the decarboxylation product of the amino acid, lysine. Decarboxylation is a chemical reaction that removes a carboxyl group and releases carbon dioxide (CO2). To understand, the majority of the lysine molecule becomes cadaverine and a residual carbon dioxide is released.
Evidently the odour picked up by Eddie (cadaver dog) is not CO2. It is not this minimal gaseous release that causes the cadaver odour.
If the whole decomposition process was only gaseous, then the body would very quickly swell up and bloat with all the gas building inside. Every single tissue, every single cell, would be producing gas in a significant quantity.
We will refrain from describing what that would mean.
These 6 reasons show very clearly that Insane is making things up as he goes along to make them fit conveniently where he wants them to fit, independent of reason or logic.
About the molecular structure of the compound Insane is able to contradict himself in the same sentence. We said it has to have more than 2 known elements, cadaverine and putrescine, to it:
“As both cadaverine and putrescine can be artificially made but the compound cannot be replicated this means that the substance that causes the EVRD dog's reaction is much more complex than one made up with just these two substances.”
He responds saying that it doesn’t – so it has the 2 – but then goes on to mention other substances:
“No, it doesn't. Please do not try to make quantum leaps of logic with respect to a subject you know nothing about. Also, stop referring to it as a ''compound''. It is not a compound. If the other molecules could be determined, they too could be synthesized.”
What others substances can there be in the compound for Insane if he says that we’re wrong in saying there are more than 2 substances present in the compound?
And if this compound was made up of only cadaverine and putrescine, wouldn’t science have broken by now the compound’s “code”, or to be more precise, the compound’s composition?
It’s because science hasn’t determined, yet, that compound’s composition that we say the compound produced by the body during its decomposition process is a very complex compound.
Have we repeated the word compound enough?
9. Compound or compounds?
Insane is very persistent that he doesn’t want us to call the source from where the odour originates as compound.
The reason is simple. He doesn’t want it to be a smell of something, he wants it to be just a smell.
The difference being that the first means it originates from something solid or liquid and the other the smell is just gas.
First, we would like to say that it’s 100% correct for us to call it compound. It's correct because we called it that. We’re not being arrogant or saying that we know more than anyone else. We just gave a name to something that didn't have a name before.
In our “Cadaver compound” post we explained how science hadn't named it yet because due to its complexity it had been unable to determine to date the exact composition of what makes EVRD dogs react.
As it didn't (and doesn’t) have a name, we called it cadaver compound. We could have called it bezidroglianic mix or simplophotrophic liquid. We didn’t, we called it cadaver compound.
Having explained that, the use of the word compound by us is then correct as the reader knows exactly as to what we are referring to when saying it.
We are not scientists nor do we claim to be. If in the future or near future science determines its composition and if science gives it that name we will not seek any copyrights or accuse anyone of plagiarism.
We called it a compound because although its exact composition is undetermined, we are certain there are chemical reactions between some of its elements. We wanted to convey the idea of consistency of the source of the cadaver odour so we chose the word compound.
Substances or elements make up a compound. Compounds can combine with other compounds to form a new compound.
Are we being scientifically imprecise? Would there be a better one to identify it? Possibly but that would be discussing useless facts, or as we called them in our “Cadaver compound” post, useless truths.
Until science says what it is and gives it a name the best we can do is to call what we think best that readers will understand.
But is it just a compound, or a single odour, or is it a cocktail of compounds, the combination of various odours?
As we’ve seen, Eddie (cadaver dog) doesn’t react to pseudo-scents. It’s not enough to mix up cadaverine with putrescine. There are over 400 components in decomposition over its stages.
The fact that EVRD dogs recognise odours from different stages of decomposition shows clearly they are not a one-smell-dog as we simplistically said in our “Cadaverine” post.
They have a range of odours that indicate that there’s no question they are from a human cadaver.
The EVRD dog recognises that particular cocktail of odours, and it doesn’t confuse it with the one from a dead rat or one from a dead skunk.
Nor does Eddie (cadaver dog) confuse it with a man made one made up of synthesised substances.
He recognises only that of a human being (only exception being that of a decomposing pig, and even in that there is no absolute certainty if EVRD dogs can or cannot tell them apart).
The best way to describe what an EVRD dog does is to compare it with a human being recognising a wine by its aroma.
When one smells wine, one can smell vanilla, berries, spice aromas as separate smells. Blindfolded, one can differentiate a red from a white wine just from that cocktail of aromas.
But humans do one thing that a dog doesn’t and that is to rationalise. We are able to analyse what we are smelling.
One can describe the aromas because one has smelled them before either by themselves or in other products. And one is able to recognise the final product not only as wine but to the precision of it being red or white.
Humans analyse what they smell but dogs don't.
The dog will only react to an odour he’s been trained to react to. Put a thousand odours under his nose but only when he detects the one he’s been trained for will he bark, his way to say: “that’s the one!”
A dog can distinguish a huge range different scents in a way humans can't.
Going back to the wine comparison, a dog is not trained just to distinguish a red from a white wine so to speak but for much more than that.
Using the wine as an example. Let's imagine we want to train a dog to identify a wine. How precise would he be?
He could be trained to distinguish from what exact region a red wine is from. For example to react only when he comes across a Bordeaux.
He could be trained to pinpoint from where it was from, determining if it was, for example, Pomerol and not from St. Estephe, Pauillac, St. Julien, Margaux, Graves/Pessac Leognan, St. Emilion or Sauternes.
He could be trained to react only to Pomerol Bordeaux from the year 2000. That particular region, sub-region and year.
Is there only one Pomerol Bordeaux? No, there are 42 producers, going from Bon Pasteur to Vray Croix de Gay.
The subtleties that make the difference between them, would all come under a range of odours (which we would call the “2000 Pomerol Bordeaux compound”).
A dog trained to react only to this range of odours (plural) would react only to the odour (singular as it refers to the specific odour of this particular group of wines) of these wines. Not to any other. Not any other red or other Bordeaux. Much less a white.
A dog's nose is one mean and precise machine.
Wine produces odour and these odours come from wine. Airborne molecules, or Volatile Organic Compounds, originated from a liquid.
A dog is like a computer. It doesn’t think, it only acts as told, or in the dog’s case, trained. If one tells a computer to light up a bulb whenever it comes across a number between the range of 1,589,876,536 and 1,589,876,559 one can be certain that if the light bulb comes on then it has come across a number within that range.
When an EVRD dog marks a location it's because he has come across the odour that has originated from what we have called “Cadaver compound”.
That’s why in the Martin Grime report in the PJ Files he said “Scientists accept that there is no forensic testing equipment as discriminatory as the dogs olfactory system at this present time”.
Nature is unbeatable, no question about it. EVRD dogs smell human, and only human, death whatever it is made up from. Simple!
10. Lingering molecules
For Insane the body must be the sole source of the odour. For him, only from there can molecules from the odour emanate. Not from vestiges left by the body. That's why for Insane decomposition can only be gaseous.
And if it is, then once the body is removed we are left only with floating molecules in the air on site. And these go with the wind. One moment they could be in the living-room the next in the bathroom, simply depending on the air currents inside the apartment.
This is what he said to push this idea:
“I can understand that some non-scientists struggle with the concept that molecules can be present in a gaseous state and that they can remain there for a long time and that a dog can alert to their presence even when there are no liquid or solid remains present, but that is no excuse for being ill informed yet blogging as if you knew what you were talking about, complete with utterly false and misleading information.”
“This is your basic problem. a complete lack of understanding. How do you think spray air fresheners work? They work because they persist for ages in the air. Dogs have way more receptors than us and can detect the presence of olfactory substances at much lower concentrations than humans.”
We are introduced to the concept of the lingering airborne molecule. A molecule that will remain afloat for ages, waiting, waiting and waiting. And going with the wind wherever the wind takes it.
Note that it cannot be a clinging molecule. If it adheres – Martin Grime wrong again according to Insane – then it won’t fly and it needs to fly to go up Eddie’s nose (cadaver dog).
The “Insane molecules” must float endlessly.
A piece of advice to our readers buying a new house. Please think carefully before you choose the scent of the first air freshener you buy. It will accompany you every single day in that house. If the reader decides to buy cinnamon and then changes to lavender, the reader is not changing anything but simply creating a mixture of cinnamon-lavender. The previous air freshener, says Insane, won’t go away. Each new chosen scent is not a new one but only the piling up of a scent from all previous ones. The reader doesn’t like the scent chosen? Afraid the only solution is to sell the house.
11. Uncertain locations
Finally Insane gets to the point:
“You still don't get it, (censored)
The whole point, Textusa, you (censored), is that airborne contamination could account for all the alerts.”
“No such thing as ''Cadaver Compound'' Please don't use it again. It is quite simple. No confirmed sightings of a missing child in 8 years. Statistics which predict a high probability that she is dead, Cadaver dog alerts at the last place she was seen while not proof are certainly indicative.”
“No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. The locations are very much secondary. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.”
So what Insane really wants to get across to all of us is this: sure Eddie (cadaver dog) did mark the scent of Maddie’s corpse but that in no way means the body was ever behind the couch or in the closet. It means only that the airborne molecules of the scent were there. The body could have been somewhere else in the apartment. Or not even in apartment if molecules flew in.
We are encountering playful molecules.
They exited the body and then decided to play hide and seek in the apartment. Half went to hide behind the couch the other half in the closet.
The importance of this?
The idea behind it is to use forensics to validate the burglar thesis.
Burglar came, killed Maddie and while he didn’t know what to do with the body it developed a gaseous mixture which released molecules into the air and which gently floated all the way behind the couch and parents’ bedroom closet. And there they remained for almost three months, at least. For all we know, they are still there. Like Insane's air fresheners they won't go away.
Insane tries to push this absurd theory of floating molecules forward and this post is about avoiding having SY even try.
12. A few minor questions
Insane, with this theory, is absolutely certain about Eddie’s (cadaver dog) accuracy:
“No-one ever said Eddie was not reliable. He was, You're not”
“Where have I ever indicated that Eddie's alerts were false? Nowhere. You can park your smear campaign at the door, (censored).”
Plus, he certainly thinks there is no mistake that it is human cadaver odour:
“Is that really where you were going with that? Who has suggested there was a decomposing pig, for (censored)?”
So if Eddie (cadaver dog) marked Maddie’s body, a few questions for Insane:
What can be the reason a person stays inside an apartment with the dead body of a totally strange child for the time it takes to develop the odour in such quantities that when spread out still has enough concentration to be detected in 2 locations inside apartment?
Hope now readers understand why Insane falsely reduced post mortem to 10 minutes in the carpet square experiment.
In that time, what were the parents doing? They say they were checking on the children regularly, so are they lying?
If only gas and only airborne contamination why did the scent resist the passing of guests who rented the apartment? All the goings in and goings out, openings and closings of doors and windows. We know there is one guest, a Kate McCann, who says that apartment was quite drafty with her infamous “whoosh klunk”.
If only gas and only airborne contamination why did the scent resist the cleaning done between guests? We're certain the apartment was ventilated on those occasions.
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.
If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on McCann clothing?
If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the cuddly cat?
If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the key FOB?
If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected on the Scenic?
Maybe the scent was chasing the McCanns around town for weeks. Besides being playful these molecules seem to have been stalkers. Pesky molecules.
13. And what about Keela (blood dog)?
Let’s imagine Insane is absolutely right. Let’s abandon logic momentarily so we can withdraw from this episode what really matters, and that is Keela (blood dog).
According to Insane Eddie clearly marked the vestiges that Maddie’s body had been inside the apartment but it’s unclear to conclude exactly where.
By the way we don’t think Insane coordinated with anyone before recognising a dead Maddie inside the apartment, because it’s a pretty damning situation for the McCanns any way one looks at it.
About determining the location where the body was Insane can rest assured that there’s a way, or to be more precise, a dog. A dog called Keela (blood dog).
Keela the blood dog.
If Insane trusts Eddie’s (cadaver dog) olfactory capabilities then he MUST trust Keela’s (blood dog).
Keela (blood dog) pinpointed the existence of blood in the exact same location as “Eddie’s molecules” decided to go play: behind the couch in the living room.
We would say that having odour of Maddie’s body and of blood in the same location we can reasonably conclude that the body was there as there is evidence that supports it and because previous criminal experiences do indicate to that certain outcome and that outcome being that Maddie’s body was behind the couch.
We have said this before but today it’s Insane.
Knowing today that Insane trusts wholeheartedly in Eddie (cadaver dog) and Keela (blood dog) we find it really hard to understand the reason he offered so much resistance about the stains behind the couch being blood, which evidently, they are.
And all that he said about DNA being transported by jam seems now quite unnecessary and it would have saved him some embarrassment.
It’s quite interesting to have seen that when we said “because out of the 3, blood, DNA and cadaver compound, the last is the most condemning. The first 2 can be “explained” with fairytale rubbish but cadaverine, sorry cadaver compound, can't.” in our post “Cadaverine compound”, Insane reacts with the following:
“Fairytale rubbish? Hardly an appropriate way to describe John Lowe”
We were not talking about John Lowe. When we said “fairytale rubbish” we were talking about Insane’s antics. But it was interesting to see how Insane linked John Lowe to the expression. Insane is the one associating him with it, not us.
Insane says he believes (and has for a long time) that Maddie is dead.
This means he also realises that in 2 countries, the police, the mainstream media, the governments have completely ignored the following:
- No confirmed sightings of a missing child in 8 years;
- That statistics predict a high probability that she is dead;
- The fact that the cadaver dog alerts to the last place she was seen.
These three factors were what Insane based his conclusions on so far, so what is reasonable to conclude is either because the evidence supports it or because previous experience indicates a certain outcome.
That outcome being that Maddie is dead.
That means the police forces, the mainstream media and the governments of 2 countries have decided to play along with the lying parents and friends (if Maddie was dead inside apartment then Insane agrees McCanns and friends are lying) and to waste public funds in abundance.
We are either encountering a cover-up or a collective incompetence beyond words. Which is it, Insane?