"Find the Body and Prove They Killed Her."
 |
| No Body Here, Scotland Yard |
If you all don't think I would like to be wrong about my thoughts that Scotland Yard is going to whitewash this case, you are seriously wrong. I want to be wrong; I will be ecstatic to be wrong. I would rather be surprised by a police department doing some really new crazy style of investigation than be wrong about my profiling, believe you me, and, I want to see justice more than I want to be right about anything.
I have already written a bunch about why I think this Scotland Yard investigation stinks, but let me go further into why, even if it were well-meaning, it makes not a damn bit of sense.
A good many investigations are dropped, not because the police don't know who did it but because the chances of a successful prosecution are slim to none. And that is what we have here. Let's look at the issues:
1) It doesn't matter that the police ran down every possible child abductor in the area and came up empty-handed. Just because they can't figure out who "abducted" Maddie, doesn't have a thing to do with proving the McCanns were involved in her death and disappearance.
2) Not being able to prove there was an abduction is not the same as proving there wasn't one. Just because there was no evidence left at the scene that proves a stranger was in the flat, doesn't mean one wasn't one there. Even if Kate's story about the an open window and whooshing curtains is suspicious and can be used as supporting evidence that the McCanns were involved in covering up a crime if other solid evidence existed, alone it cannot be used to prove they staged a crime scene.
3) The cadaver dog evidence is not admissible in court. It is great for probable cause for further investigation and it is great as evidence of where to search for a body (since a car was used, the body would be outside of, not in PDL) but it is not proof in a court of law that Maddie died in the apartment and was disposed of by the McCanns.
4) That stories changed and were conflicting and the behavior of the Tapas 9 bizarre and concerning is but more information for future investigation, but alone is not proof of homicide (intentional or not) nor of body removal.
5) There is some DNA but it has been so questioned by "experts" that a defense attorney will shred this in court.
6) No confession. Unless one or both of the McCanns confess.
7) No credible confession from any of the Tapas 7, especially Jane Tanner, since now Scotland Yard has publicly verified her sighting, so she couldn't have been lying for the McCanns (not only that, but if Scotland Yard can't produce Tannerman, the defense would wreak havoc with that lie of law enforcement). Unless they know exactly where the body can be dug up (and there is no way I believe if Gerry McCann carried Maddie's body off, anyone knows where she is, except possibly Kate), there is no way to prove what they say is true. More than one of the Tapas 7 would have to testify in court in order for a defense lawyer not to be able to knock the claims down. And how are they going to get the Tapas 7 to Portugal except to charge them with a crime as well and have an arrest warrant issued for England to comply with is problematic (why the Tapas 7 would even talk at this point is also quite questionable).
8) Proof that Maddie was overmedicated cannot be proven without a body; that she fell and died of a concussion cannot be proven without a body; that the McCanns moved her and buried her cannot be proven without a body. This is a huge hill for any prosecution to climb.
9) No body, no case. Really, no body, no case.
10) With all the screw-ups, interventions, media, etc., the defense lawyer would have a field day tearing apart the case.
So, prosecution is extremely unlikely to occur unless Maddie's body is found and found with evidence that links back to the McCanns or the body is found in a place that links to the McCanns (like where I want them to search at Monte do Jose Mestre, the desolate area just west of Praia da Luz where Gerry's phone pinged after he rented the hire car). Unless Scotland Yard is really looking in the right places (and not in the middle of Praia da Luz), then this case is unlikely to have a body to go to court with.
Let's go back to the beginning. The McCanns petitioned Scotland Yard to work on the case, something they would be extraordinarily unlikely to do if they really thought Scotland Yard was going to focus on the evidence. Only if they got wind through Clarence that Scotland Yard was planning a clever partnership with Portugal to bring the McCanns down and went ahead and pretended they wanted the an investigation because this would make them look innocent ...whew...yeah, it have to be something like this for the investigation to be other than a planned whitewash (unless they were truly innocent as the pro-McCanners would point out and will point out if Scotland Yard ends this case without naming the McCanns at least suspects).
Why would Scotland Yard, barring a whitewash for reasons none of us can seem to figure out, want to waste their time with a likely unwinnable case that won't even be prosecuted on home turf? Why would they spend millions and millions of pounds on this one case which has two neglectful parents and happened in another country? If Scotland Yard never got involved, the case would simply dwindle away as do all unsolved missing person cases and, in this case, it is even easier for the police to just let it fade because Portugal can be blamed and the UK police don't have to worry about the case affecting them. For that matter, they could have just spent a small amount of money sending a little team over to come up with limited results as happens all the time in cold cases.
Furthermore, it would be hugely embarrassing for Britain to admit the Portuguese were right and they were wrong, that their politicians and media broke their necks to support such a criminal couple and that due to this, they almost let them walk and they allowed them to bilk the public out of millions of pounds with their fraudulent fund. Would the powers that be in the UK really want to get their necks chopped off? I doubt it.
All of this is why I find it hard to believe Scotland Yard is planning a big coup. I think they are just following a prescribed plan which makes it looks like they tried real hard: they read all the files, did months of analysis, went to the public for tips, fought with the PJ for cooperation, found a number of reasonable suspects, recognized the child could have died at the time or sometime after the crime was committed, that she could have been buried by the perp, that they tried to find her, and now that they have done everything an investigating agency can do, especially one having to work in another's jurisdiction, and they can give the McCanns at least the most probable answer. The McCanns will thank Scotland Yard profusely for trying to find Madeleine, for finding out what likely happened to Madeleine, and for putting all those ludicrous rumors about their involvement to rest (regardless of the truth of that).
Time will prove whether Scotland Yard is on the up and up or not. Again, I really hope I am going to have the biggest surprise of my profiling life, but I am preparing for what I expect will be a major disappointment.
PS. Someone just tweeted that maybe the McCanns could be prosecuted in the UK under British law. I think that is a fine idea but they still have the problem of trying to prosecute them for a crime they can't prove as of yet. When I wrote my book, I carefully avoided libel issues (admittedly, I still got Carter-Rucked) by stating that there was as of yet no proof a homicide had occurred and no proof that the McCanns were to blame and no proof that Maddie's body was removed and hidden by the McCanns. All I said was the evidence pointed toward the McCanns making them the reasonable suspects. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't take the case to court unless I had a confession or a body or both.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 23, 2014
Let's go back to the beginning. The McCanns petitioned Scotland Yard to work on the case, something they would be extraordinarily unlikely to do if they really thought Scotland Yard was going to focus on the evidence. Only if they got wind through Clarence that Scotland Yard was planning a clever partnership with Portugal to bring the McCanns down and went ahead and pretended they wanted the an investigation because this would make them look innocent ...whew...yeah, it have to be something like this for the investigation to be other than a planned whitewash (unless they were truly innocent as the pro-McCanners would point out and will point out if Scotland Yard ends this case without naming the McCanns at least suspects).
Why would Scotland Yard, barring a whitewash for reasons none of us can seem to figure out, want to waste their time with a likely unwinnable case that won't even be prosecuted on home turf? Why would they spend millions and millions of pounds on this one case which has two neglectful parents and happened in another country? If Scotland Yard never got involved, the case would simply dwindle away as do all unsolved missing person cases and, in this case, it is even easier for the police to just let it fade because Portugal can be blamed and the UK police don't have to worry about the case affecting them. For that matter, they could have just spent a small amount of money sending a little team over to come up with limited results as happens all the time in cold cases.
Furthermore, it would be hugely embarrassing for Britain to admit the Portuguese were right and they were wrong, that their politicians and media broke their necks to support such a criminal couple and that due to this, they almost let them walk and they allowed them to bilk the public out of millions of pounds with their fraudulent fund. Would the powers that be in the UK really want to get their necks chopped off? I doubt it.
All of this is why I find it hard to believe Scotland Yard is planning a big coup. I think they are just following a prescribed plan which makes it looks like they tried real hard: they read all the files, did months of analysis, went to the public for tips, fought with the PJ for cooperation, found a number of reasonable suspects, recognized the child could have died at the time or sometime after the crime was committed, that she could have been buried by the perp, that they tried to find her, and now that they have done everything an investigating agency can do, especially one having to work in another's jurisdiction, and they can give the McCanns at least the most probable answer. The McCanns will thank Scotland Yard profusely for trying to find Madeleine, for finding out what likely happened to Madeleine, and for putting all those ludicrous rumors about their involvement to rest (regardless of the truth of that).
Time will prove whether Scotland Yard is on the up and up or not. Again, I really hope I am going to have the biggest surprise of my profiling life, but I am preparing for what I expect will be a major disappointment.
PS. Someone just tweeted that maybe the McCanns could be prosecuted in the UK under British law. I think that is a fine idea but they still have the problem of trying to prosecute them for a crime they can't prove as of yet. When I wrote my book, I carefully avoided libel issues (admittedly, I still got Carter-Rucked) by stating that there was as of yet no proof a homicide had occurred and no proof that the McCanns were to blame and no proof that Maddie's body was removed and hidden by the McCanns. All I said was the evidence pointed toward the McCanns making them the reasonable suspects. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't take the case to court unless I had a confession or a body or both.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 23, 2014
Published: July 27, 2011
What really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in 2007? Was she abducted as the Gerry and Kate have claimed or did something happen to Madeleine on May 3 in the vacation apartment and the incident covered up? Criminal Profiler Pat Brown analyzes the evidence and takes the readers through the steps of profiling, developing a theory that is intriguing and controversial.
33 comments:
That's the crux of the matter you don't throw money at a case in which the likelihood of a successful prosecution is next to nil. Scotland Yard has told us that they believe in an abduction, Mr. Redwood has stated that he rejects any other scenario. Mr. Redwood's declarations, his obsession with the media and the timing of it all is what leads people to believe that this is a whitewash.
Even if SY does not identify that elusive abductor, a possibility which they recently hinted at, it will still be a whitewash because SY has given credibility to the abduction story and to stories of serial sex offenders in Portugal and above all, discredited the work of the original investigators.
I think many people believe there is incredible "intel" behind the scenes that no one knows about but the police, that they are involved in a very difficult and brilliant investigation. The fact is, in most homicides, the work is pretty basic and the reason cases go unsolved is due lack of evidence or incompetence (like the detective handling the case has little logic and poor analysis ability). The only time "intel" is amazing and there needs to be a massive team of specialists is when one is dealing with cartels, the Mafia, worldwide sex rings, huge economic fraud and such. If an individual person is involved in a homicide, especially a nonpremeditated homicide, they aren't so clever that simple, solid detective work based on good crime scene analysis can't figure the case out in a reasonable period of time. Some of the cases I went in to work on were obvious within minutes, most within a day or two. Only true stranger homicides (serial killers) have few clues to follow. The McCann case had a whole bunch but none leading away from the flat except in the hire car. It doesn't take three years to put together a strategy and follow it through.
Pat,everything you say makes so much sense,something is sinister about the McCann case & those who are copmplicit in it.Like you I don't believe SY will arrest the McCanns,which spells corruption coursing through it,but why I can guess but won't say here.The only hope I have is that over time friends fall out then loyalties change then perhaps someone in the know comes forward.
I am in complete agreement Pat. I can enviasge that in 50 or 100 years time, there will be Yahoo articles talking about 'Has the dissappearance of Madeleine Mccann finally been solved? New book examines the evidence.'
And there will be an author who thinks the parents were innocent, but then a historian who thinks the parents were culpable, and the article will end by calling the whole thing one of those great mysteries, like the Mary Celeste or Ameila Earhart,that will keep people debating for a long time to come!
Of course I hope I'm wrong too.
Re Blacksmith: Even if I admire Bennett and the Jill Havern Forum; and even if I like a lot of the people who post there, I've always quite liked Blacksmith for standing up to the cesspit and highlighting its most repugnent aspects. However, with this latest, silly attack, I really have lost all respect for him.
Thomas,i agree about Blacksmith,he's got a beef with Tony Bennett which can be quite awful sometimes,& he sometimes blows hot and cold,he's now moaning about Pat,but I think Pat is on the money about the SY team.I've read Pat's book,It's very good .
I don't think that it matters greatly whether we agree with Pat or even what view we take of criminal profiling. That isn't the issue.
I'm not remotely interested in a person's background, 'authenticity'', their presumed authority or even how they earn a living.
None of this has any bearing upon the outcomes that the PJ/SY are trying to thrash out.
Pat has extended the relevance of the fate of Madeleine McCann to a great many people, and I am happy to take that at face value.
She has always spoken about the case in terms of her perceptions and experience. This has never been presented as though she were privy to some kind of 'insider' information with which to stifle opposing debate, but always with frank openness.
Blacksmith will be digging dirt, cutting and pasting. Nothing to do with a dead child, nothing to do with extending awareness or media nous. Just grudge.
I'm more than happy to leave him to it.
To be fair to Blacksmith, cutting and pasting is the very thing he doesn't ever do. He's always original. And passionate too (perhaps too passionate).
Good blog Pat. I hope one day your project with Mr Amaral is able to proceed (one thing about the case is certain: books will be published eventually, and many of them).
Don't know Blacksmith but enjoys his great talent with words and sentence construction, he is indeed a gifted writer, and he is also clever. My guess is that he, in his daily profession, does not get to use his full talent and energy, hence he is carrying considerable frustration, wich is why he sometimes goes overboard with his blog writing.
Certainly he does not have a great need neither to please nor to get friends! However, he has some great humor and is mostly interestering to follow. Of course he does not like to be wrong in his analysis, but maybe this time he will. Nobody knows. /Catherine
Fair comment about Blacksmith's passion. (Cutting and pasting referred to his obscene phrenology images.)
Too much passion might equally apply to all sides (if sides is the right term). People are desperate to see an outcome. Some are perhaps a little afraid to express their hope, whilst others are maybe too eager to impress it upon them.
Time passes.
But nothing in the establishment changes, referring to Kate and Gerry is an indicator in itself, although I'm sure these rather English customs are coming slowly to an end. But when the MET in official press releases refer to them by their first names, do you ever believe they have come in the frame of the investigation. Yet alone, one can't avoid the precursor of this saga, THAT THEY LEFT THOSE CHILDREN HOMEALONE (... or depending on scenario do they?) but which is the most acceptable option to the investigation.
Finding the body..... oh body.... those are dead aren't they. Are they ( MET ) allowed to say that? But a body indicates something quite wholesome that might deliver some evidence from PM\forensics. Assuming as most do, death occurred that night, 3rd May 2007 - the remains will be far and few, and perhaps even less that would render much evidence at PM. Perhaps more to do with artefacts!
What shade of white, is whitewash: Very little has been gained from the METs op Grange over it's years of investigation, apart from a rather long list of possible fall-guys. But wait, something very very significant happened, didn't it? Remember how the whole world has been fixated for years that Jane saw the abduction in action, under McCanns nose. REMEMBER THAT! Whoooooooshed - just like those curtains. But what is important now, if MSM has also airbrushed out this - and crèche-dad has also been whooooshed. And MSM are now producing maps of PDL stating last sighting at 10pm by the Smiths family, set firmly in the frame.
But the 'word' search remains the same VINIDCATION
Thanks Pat
Meadow.
Blacksmith attacks anyone who states or implies that the British government were complicit in a coverup. If the person suggesting a coverup is well known then he will launch into a tirade, anonymous people like myself he will group them altogether and refer to them as idiots and losers. When Mr. Amaral expresses similar sentiments he is more tactful saying to the effect that Mr. Amaral should abandon such thoughts that they don't do him any good.
Just frustration mainly I think, guerra.
He was thinking the same himself before the review became investigation, so I'm not sure he doesn't understand why many people will still think the same.
Did many really believe JT had seen an abductor anyway, Meadow?
I'm not sure many did, and certainly not cynical,seen-it-all journalists.
I don't think Crimewatch did make much difference.
They know the story was embellished, but that's not the same thing as knowing what happened to Madeleine.
Guerra,
I really wouldn't worry about it. He posted images that he knew to have nothing to do with a rational critique of contemporary Profiling or Psychology, but everything to do with historic 'justifications' of mass murder.
He did this knowing perfectly well that Pat had just recently posted about her German/Jewish ancestry. That was the nature of his attack.
There's nothing more to know about the man.
It doesn't bother me what Blacksmith says. And if I get tired of this war of words all I have to do is shut off the computer.
What I said is a fact. He is so vehement that one starts to wonder if deflecting suspicion away from any British government involvement is part of his mission statement when it comes to discussing the Kate & Gerry affair; it ceased to be about Madeleine a long time ago.
Nah, in the past he's not been shy of saying exactly what it is that motivates him (and he doesn't care about what people think of him either).
But even so his last article was very out of character.
(I think... but who ever really knows anyone online?)
Reply to 11.30 am
Oh well I believe everything and nothing. Reading the roggies, JT confirms emphatically that the man she saw was NOT a parent returning from the crèche wrong direction, wrong time. So why was it necessary for the MET to confirm her sighting of someone, when they have basically so far only been ''flag waving'' after all we know nothing of ANOTHER sighting, of child, of evening sleepin creche being offered up, but then the MET doesn't give away facts.
It's just of interest at the time of this great moment of explaining away JTs sighting and packing it up water-tight - it wasn't the abductor. MOVE ON. They introduce the id-photos of two unknowns, with the implication they were FOUND in the McCanns investigation files ---- ya like the Smith family gave this information to PIs. Don't believe it.
A big area of NOW you see NOW you don't, good bye ambiguities of the famous T9 timeline all ironed out thanks to the MET.
Meadow
What about the air that Gonçalo Amaral said that PJ has in safe box? Should it be analyzed?
I've always been of the opinion that the twins will solve the case.
Their young minds stored away vital information that will come to the surface in good time. They also probably overheard many conversations from careless adults that provided more clues. They and Madeleine will have justice in the end.
@PAT, Does washing a toy destroy traces of a drug?
Since the toy was in close contact with madeleins face, and the idea some intruder drugged the child to keep her silent, why was the toy never examined for drug traces?
I have a question for you Pat.
If the police found a body was there any chance to trace it to the parents?
Personally I don't think DNA would do because "they" (you know) were in intimate contact with her. Same would apply to any "compromising" bits and pieces found with it. Easy.
Anything else you can think of?
I can't! - short of some IMAX CCTV footage surfacing! A probability close to zero!
"No body no case" but again - if there was a body how on earth would they trace it to one or the other or both unless there is a third or a fourth already dead - which of course have already been hinted at anyway. The subliminals are out already...
Assuming G and/or K did it (cough) this must give them total confidence - namely the fact they can NEVER be pinned down - short of that IMAX-type CCTV footage surfacing which you bet it won't.
There isn't even a fuzzy, low definition footage of a local CCTV!
Any other arguments, the McCanns' multi-million legal and reputation management teams would laugh them off!
Drugs on the child's remains?
Gosh! Isabel D. would argue the abductor must have drugged them! Given an elite legal team any argument can be de-constructed a la Derrida.
I think you summarized it brilliantly - I start to admire your brains!
"I think they are just following a prescribed plan which makes it look like they tried real hard: they read all the files, did months of analysis, went to the public for tips, fought with the PJ for cooperation, found a number of reasonable suspects, recognized the child could have died at the time or sometime after the crime was committed, that she could have been buried by the perp, that they tried to find her, and now that they have done everything an investigating agency can do, especially one having to work in another's jurisdiction, and they can give the McCanns at least the most probable answer. The McCanns will thank Scotland Yard profusely for trying to find Madeleine, for finding out what likely happened to Madeleine, and for putting all those ludicrous rumors about their involvement to rest (regardless of the truth of that)."
Full stop!
Uff! I was starting to get tired of the McCanns!
Paula
PS By the way I read your lovely little book "Only the Truth". Wonderful!
Guerra, I agree with you.
The all SY exercise is to discredit the Portuguese investigation AND the Portuguese Justice system, should the McCanns loose (they probably will in Portugal) and the case goes (eventually) to the European Court of Justice.
There, given some political lobbying, the McCanns' have a slightly better chance...
Anyway, for the sake of the freedom of opinion - both in Portugal and in the UK - I hope the "poor parents" loose.
Fingers crossed!
This thought just came to mind. The people who argued that the McCanns and their Tapas friends have no connections to anyone in the British hierarchy, that the McCanns are just ordinary people who fooled a nation, are the same people who are now describing Scotland Yard's declarations as clever subterfuge, as if the McCanns and company were a gang of master criminals and that is what is required to bring them to justice.
What are the McCanns and company going to do if they realise that SY is actually investigating them, move the body? It's quite humorous if you think about it.
Paula,
Yes, EVEN if Maddie's body is found, it would still be difficult to prove the McCanns disposed of her, certainly much more difficult seven years after the fact than it would have been within the first year.
However, IF the body were found near where Gerry's phone pinged, they were able to find drugs in her system, the sports bag, maybe some sand from where I think she was first buried on the Rocha Negra and NO evidence of sexual assault (if that can be proven with so much decomposition...maybe just no semen), then, maybe with all the other circumstantial behavior, a jury could find the McCanns guilty, especially if one or some of the Tapas 7 come clean.
But, as you point out, it would still be a tough battle for the prosecution especially in light of everything that has gone on....much fodder for a defense attorney.
And, thank you about "Only the Truth." I love that book myself..I think if I went to Arkansas I could find Billy Ray! I love him dearly....
Pat, why hasn't anyone searched that desolate area you've mentioned? Sounds incompetent to me if there were pings from Gerry's phone. The place should have already been turned upside down. Honestly, I get the impression you're the only one who wants & has tried to find that little gurl. I don't understand it. If my dog was missing I'd leave no stone unturned...it's just ridiculous.
Weighing this up, Clarrie leaves the government information agency (the now defunct COI) to support the parents of a missing child in an unprecedented move. At least two prime ministers are involved, millions of £s are spent, far more than in any other similar investigation (April Jones £2.4 million), a plethora of suspects are put before the public, none arrested, some conveniently die. The UK police appear to ride roughshod over the Portuguese in a way they wouldn't dare anywhere else(e.g. the Alps murder),the Director of Public Prosecutions flies out to Portugal - also unprecedented, all the compelling forensic evidence gathered so far is somehow invalidated. In the meantime other public figures close to prime ministers have been exposed and condemned (Jimmy Saville) or brought to trial(Coulson, Brooks), and there's been no hesitation in bringing prominent and popular figures in the entertainment world to trial either for child-related offences(Rolf Harris). There have been murder convictions in the UK without a body, or largely on circumstantial evidence. There's not an elephant in the room large enough to encompass the magnitude of this cover up.
Reply to Pat at May 24, 2014 at 11:52 PM
Thanks for clarifying that for me!
The large holdall photographed in the wardrobe that went missing! OF COURSE! I missed that!
Funny to observe (read verbatim) David Payne talking about "the sports bag" during his rogatory interview! He hesitated and deviated like hell! : )
Very good point! Thanks!
May be you should let SY crack team know about the area where Gerry mobile pinged (...) not that I think they would be interested...
Like you suggested, Scotland Yard's brief seems to be entirely different ...
If their "crack team" is seen to be searching in PdL and "find nothing" then... the mainstream world will think it must have been a kidnapping! The body is not in the area you see!
The main stream public has forgotten all about the Renault Scenic, the mileage and who drove it like a decoy (Kate's cousin and childhood's friend).
No allegations made! Just hypothesizing...
On second thoughts... it could be a way to whitewash the Smith's sighting from the mainstream public's mind... but it is more likely to be about what you already wrote.
The prestigious SY (never mind the actual corruption going on there) want to be seen trying "everything".
The irony is that in the long run, all these RPM's will help to put the Portuguese police credit back on track...
This flurry of diggings (during the holiday season!?!) is to ensure maximum cover! Or perhaps to punish the Portuguese for not replying to their rogatory letters immediately. They can't win!
One has to give credit to Clarence Mitchell/Burson-Marsteller intimate connections with David Cameron - who may be, after all, the who is pulling "SY puppets" strings!
Just an hunch (...)
Paula
RPM's is an acronym for "reputation management". Rhymes with "revolutions per minute" (...)
Something that has never been answered,never mind not answered satisfactorily.
Kate McCann said the smell of death on her clothes was because she had attended several dead bodies prior to her holiday. It would be easy enough to find out if this claim is true or not but as far as I'm aware this has never been confirmed.
You don't believe that GMC disposed of the corpse in a bin, though the "experts" remembered that and though Gonçalo Amaral, a Roman Catholic, did it with a little dog thinking how easy it was to get rid of a body.
But you must admit that their story telling required the quick removal far from PDL and radical recycling of the body.
A sedation accident doesn't explain the cadaver scent, which requires 90 minutes in optimal conditions of VOCs' preservation. Madeleine died before they left. A domestic accident could be followed by a denial not of death but of responsibility. Denial in this case is denial of death.
Plus she worked private practice. How often do you actually have dead bodies at a drs office. An ER ok but not a drs office.
And let's be honest, if you are accused of being involved and it did happen...she would have proven it.
The lack of that really says it all.
I disagree with Pat Brown stating that cadaver dog evidence is not admissible in court. It is! A precedent was set in a 2012 case in Britain where a successful conviction for murder was made based on "no body / cadaver dog evidence". See the case of Suzanne Pilley. The problem here is when the crime takes place in another Sovereign country. What happens? Cadaver dog evidence is now admissible in Britain - what about Portugal? Could SY prosecute in a British court?
@AnnGuedes
Your 90 minute statistic is very wrong.
In a study published last year, the forensic pathologist Lars Oesterhelweg, then at the University of Bern in Switzerland, and colleagues tested the ability of three Hamburg State Police cadaver dogs to pick out – of a line-up of six new carpet squares – the one that had been exposed for no more than 10 minutes to a recently deceased person.
Several squares had been placed beneath a clothed corpse within three hours of death, when some organs and many cells of the human body are still functioning. Over the next month, the dogs did hundreds of trials in which they signalled the contaminated square with 98 per cent accuracy, falling to 94 per cent when the square had been in contact with the corpse for only two minutes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html
It only takes four minutes after death for decomposition and putrefaction to begin.
Instead of telling people they're wrong, you should read properly the article you quote.
That article says it :
90 minutes of post-mortem are needed at least and in good conditions for VOCs to develop and be picked up by a well trained cadaver dog.
Post a Comment