Textusa, Martin Grime, and the dogs

Slowly grinding my way through the PJ files on telephone records is more than a tad boring. I thought a change was as good as a rest, so I decided that looking at what Textusa has been offering recently would be a little light entertainment.

I don’t need to explain Textusa’s central theorem re Madeleine McCann, therefore I wont. I will simply focus on Textusa with respect to Martin Grime and the dogs.

First let me summarise my own viewpoint, which will give you an idea of my approach to this topic.

I have never been impressed by the dogs as evidence. If the dog-handler, Martin Grime, states that only the forensics count, then I go by the forensics. If the forensics are non-supportive, then I am not going to find guilt merely by interpreting what the dogs were doing.

On this basis, I have never spent much time digging into the track record of dogs in general, of Eddie and Keela in particular, and of Martin Grime in particular. As Textusa builds on two of these, I am straying out of my zone of expertise. I am playing away from home, in a battleground of someone else’s choosing.

This is generally not a smart thing to do, but as I explained at the start, I am bored with the trail I am currently pursuing, and this is simply a fun diversion.

The relevant entries on Textusa’s blog are “Cadaverine” (29 May 2015) and “Cadaver compound” (5 Jun 2015).

There are probably older entries relating to the dogs and Martin Grime, but I have no intention of trying to index Textusa’s blog, so I will stick with those two posts.

The second explains that Textusa used the term ‘cadaverine’ in the first post merely as a simplification in a post containing a lot of information. The second also explains that the term ‘cadaver compound’ may be a more accurate description, as we are not certain what chemical cocktail Eddie or Keela reacts to.

I understand why Textusa took this step. If we don’t know the chemical formula or formulas of the mix that sets Eddie off, there is going to be fertile ground for those who choose to haggle over what it should be called.

I do not have a term for this cocktail that is accurate but devoid of connotation, therefore I am not in a position to criticise. However, cadaver compound clearly has a connotation that a cadaver, a dead body, is the original source. Martin Grime is specific that dead blood will make Eddie alert, without there being a cadaver. This explains checks in the PJ files on previous occupants of apartment 5A to see if they had bled there. Textusa attempts to persuade us that Eddie does not alert to blood, only to cadaverine (or rather, cadaver compound odour), but the simple fact is that his handler, Martin Grime, is clear that Eddie reacts to blood that is dead.

This explains the overarching need for forensics. This explains why Eddie alerted to the Renault Scenic key, and the FSS found the material belonged to Gerry McCann, a live person.

As soon as one realises that Eddie alerts to dead blood, whether the person who shed it is alive or not, you hit lots of problems with the dogs’ evidence. It would appear no-one bled in any of the 10 vehicles screened by Eddie in the car park, other than in the McCanns vehicle. It would appear no-one bled in any of the apartments occupied by the Tapas 9, with the exception of 5A. No-one bled in 4G, occupied by the McCanns for 2 months from 4 May 2007 to 2 or 3 July 2007. No one bled in Casa Liliana. Despite Eddie alerting to articles from 27 Rua das Flores, which again could be explained by blood from a live person in 27 Rua das Flores, Eddie did not alert to a specific location that could be the source for the scent, only to the articles removed.

When I say no one bled, I am not restricting this to the Tapas 9, Robert Murat and his circle. No one bled covers all of the previous occupants of all of the locations searched, whether that occupancy was before Madeleine McCann disappeared, or after 3rd May May up to the date that Eddie searched.

In the two posts I have noted, Textusa limits discussion to apartment 5A, Casa Liliana and a potential third location. That possible third location was not searched by Eddie. I have little knowledge of what Textusa says about later alerts, so it is time for me to get back ‘on topic’, and focus on apartment 5A and Casa Liliana.

Textusa goes for 3 alerts by Eddie – behind the couch in the lounge, beside the wardrobe in the parent’s bedroom, and in the garden close to the passageway (running behind block 5) and adjacent to the garden of 5B.

I make it 4 alerts. I agree on the location of the first two. However, I have seen Eddie alert on the veranda outside the patio doors of the parents’ bedroom. And I would position the final alert in the garden basically directly below the veranda alert i.e. as close to 5A as one can get in the garden. I disagree with Textusa that vertical means to the south. I interpret vertical as in horizontal and vertical. Such is life.

The alert on the veranda and the alert in the garden appear to relate to the same source, which would condense the 4 down into 3. And the location in the garden is not core to Textusa’s theorem, so I see no point in haggling.

In “Cadaverine”, Textusa explains the post is to demonstrate that Madeleine’s body could have been on Murat’s property even though Eddie did not alert there.

Textusa solves this conundrum by placing a vehicle not belonging to the Murats on the Murat property, with said vehicle probably sourced by the Ocean Club. The latter would explain why Murat’s vehicles could be searched and nothing found.

Thus Casa Liliana, its grounds and the Murat vehicles could all be clean, despite the body being on the property. Textusa makes it clear that the post is not to prove that the body was on the property, merely that the evidence does not rule this out.

Mrs Jenny Murat’s statement makes it clear she was in the property that night, and that she saw and heard nothing unusual. Unless she is part of a conspiracy, there was no ‘strange’ vehicle on her property, coming and then going through her gates at odd times of the night.

Such a vehicle might have been parked near to but outside her property, and then there is no reason to believe Mrs Murat noticed anything and no reason to make her a conspiracy suspect.

Of course, if such a vehicle was on public property, it was exposed to the risk of being peered into during the Ocean Club structured search. Note I have limited myself to saying ‘at risk of’ and nothing more.

Let’s go back to apartment 5A and see what Textusa explains about the scene. The theory can be summarised as saying Gerry is the culprit of the scene, and that on his longish visit to 5A around 9.05, he took the body from behind the couch to an unknown location (location X) within 5A, cleaned the body to the extent it was not leaving material trace of cadaver compound, moved it to the cupboard and shortly thereafter moved it to the garden. This latter leg was because he heard someone coming towards 5A. He then exited the gate to talk to Jeremy Wilkins, to establish a parental checking routine on the children.

Jane Tanner walked past Gerry and Jez and saw Smithman.

After parting with Jez, Gerry headed towards the Tapas area long enough for Jeremy to walk out of sight. At that point Gerry doubled back, entered the garden, retrieved the body and headed off into the night with it.

It seems this was to the mystery OC vehicle on Murat’s property. That would give another set of gate opening/closing at Casa Liliana, again risking comment from Mrs Murat.

Anyway, Gerry managed to get back to the Tapas restaurant before Jane Tanner returned. Unless of course the Tapas 9 are all up to their neck in conspiracy.

One movement of the body is explained as the need to clean up the area behind the sofa in 5A. If Madeleine’s body was left there from before the McCanns went out to dinner, (which Textusa asserts on the basis the protagonists were still thinking about calling the authorities), to Gerry’s visit at 9.10 or so, then Gerry was very busy indeed. This adds cleaning the area behind the sofa onto Gerry’s list of tasks.

If as part of Gerry’s alleged clean of Madeleine, the body was wrapped in a suitable container, I can understand why a prompt deployment of Eddie might find the relevant odour in the parent’s wardrobe without locating a specific location of cadaver contamination.

What I am not getting is why location 2, the wardrobe, escapes such contamination, but location 3, the garden of 5A becomes contaminated.

The idea that the body was not in the wardrobe long enough to infuse it with cross-contamination is fine. The idea that Madeleine’s body went into the cupboard and did not touch a surface due to protective material that was then removed is not fine.

And why does Textusa worry about contamination on Gerry’s hand being transferred to the garden gate? Textusa does not worry about contamination on the patio doors or contamination on the baby gate. The patio doors are better protected from the elements, and contamination on them, inside or out, should last longer than on the exposed baby gate and garden gate.

While if Gerry cleaned Madeleine’s body, why did he not get contaminated at that time? This leads to an obvious answer of wearing household gloves at the time. With Madeleine parcelled up, there is no need to worry about contamination on Gerry’s hands. Or on the patio doors, or on the baby gate or on the garden gate. Just dump the household gloves in the rubbish long before Eddie turned up on the scene.

Eddie’s specific alert in the garden (where the FSS found nothing) is problematic, but I think there is a simple solution, whilst adhering to Textusa’s theorem.

Assume Madeleine’s body was never in the parents’ bedroom. This has the clear advantage that it explains why there was no cadaver compound source. If correct, it explains away the issue with the garden alert. Madeleine goes from clean up position X to the garden, without a detour. A side benefit of this is that Gerry requires less time to make this shorter trip.

There is a problem of course. Why did Eddie alert in the parents’ bedroom if Madeleine’s corpse was never in it. To complicate matters, the alert took place around 4 months after Madeleine disappeared, which is by no means ‘prompt‘.

How about Martin Grime’s explanation that the source can be elsewhere, but the scent can concentrate in a location that the source is not?

We know that there was a source behind the couch. Eddie alerted to it. Keela alerted to it. It is the sole spot in which the FSS was clear that Madeleine was involved, even if the amount found was so minute that the type of source found could not be identified in the lab. If Keela was correct, we are probably talking about blood.

We know that Eddie thought 5A was so reeking of the smell of death that he was off like a shot as soon as the front door opened. Thus we have a source, and an apartment in which the odour had reached the front door.

Why should the same scent not reach the parents’ bedroom? Why is it that the source is a minor contact some 4 months earlier, rather than simply emanating from the sofa location, where a current, physical source was found? Why go for complex when simple does the trick?

This post has become much, much longer than anticipated, and I have yet to cover Textusa’s second post on the topic, so I think it is time to have a break here.

PS to Textusa. Amend the 4AM trip from Casa Liliana to the water treatment plant. Why go the long way anti-clockwise past 5A, past the tail end of the structured Ocean Club search? Try the shorter, clockwise route that avoids both of these issues


13 thoughts on “Textusa, Martin Grime, and the dogs

  1. This is pretty grim… it’s just as boring as the phone data, but this actually serves no purpose. A ‘bit of fun’ is tough… I know you’re caught up in the whole sleuthing part, but there is a little child that was likely murdered, and she was real.

    Textusa likes to boast he or she is convinced the McCanns read his/her blog. Well, I hope they do not read that rubbish nor this last post here, God love them.

    It’s not a murder mystery, it’s a bloody tragedy for that poor family. Now, if you were dealing with a valid hypothesis that they were involved which held any water, that would be different. But this doesn’t. Textusa is not very bright.

    You question whether RM’s mother could also be involved in the conspiracy? For Textusa’s theory just about EVERYONE had to be in on it… what’s one more?

    It’s just a waste of time, and to put it bluntly, Textusa’s theories are plainly stupid and the obvious ramblings of a disturbed individual with a fixation and a low IQ.

    I know you’re suggesting their unlikelihood, but this material does seem in questionable taste to me.

    Big supporter of your work as a whole, as ever, though.

    All the best.

    • Textusa’s main interests, as far as I am concerned, are two-fold.

      This is someone trawling through the data and turning up information that I consider relevant i.e. the data itself (rather than anyone’s theorem) that clarifies what was going on at the time. I am not starting out with the idea that I know what happened, therefore other folks ideas, and what they are building on, can be a revealing line of thought.

      Second, Luz gets stick from nearly every quarter, portraying it as crime-ridden, drug-ridden, and scandal-ridden. Therefore, when someone influential (and Textusa is influential) adds to that (with swinging scandal, body concealment conspiracy, evidence alteration conspiracy and body disposal conspiracy), I like to point out that the deductions are unreliable.

      To be honest, if I had an MSM outlet, I would hold a number of the members of the media accountable for some of the assertions and disinformation they publish. Since I don’t, there is little value in pointing out their errors. I have an Internet blog, so I stick to Internet sources on this.

      As it happens, I’m on Jill Havern for the same reason.

      I am neither for or against the McCanns. I very much doubt that they read my blog. If they did, they should be able to piece together from what I am saying on Textusa, Martin Grime and the dogs, that the dogs are very much their allies, given their evidence is so scrambled. They should also be able to use my recent stuff on a planned abduction as a demo of how easy it was, even if their check routine claims are 100% accurate.

      Finally, I have roughed up the scenario by which the Tapas 9 children could all have been at risk, and I’m sitting on a post as to why it happened in Madeleine’s day.

      Sympathy or empathy the McCanns can get from better sources than me. If I happen to progress things by taking the case forward, beyond that which exists in the public domain today, I will settle for that. I have already taken it beyond the McCann understanding and I’m confident there is more to come.

      And now, back to the boring phone data, which I believe is another step forward.

      • I don’t know what world you inhabit if you think ‘Textusa’, anonymous kook and full-time lunatic, is influential. Jill Havern is also populated by the mentally disturbed and the illiterate. This case strikes a chord with people who have substantial amounts of fur on the palms of their hands and chips on their shoulders.

        If I wanted to read the insane fancies of those eejits, you know where I’d look? On that blog or that forum. What’s the point in painstakingly criticising a theory that holds no water, and is clearly mad? Especially if it involves such gruesome imagery… It’s an exercise in futility, and is in poor taste. You’ll find lots of such musings on those two pages, because people derive a sick pleasure from them.

        And I know you’re always trying to be non-committal and objective, keeping all possibilities open… but your language is very much like what you can read on those pages. Pro or Anti, like it’s a cup final, and you pick a team to support. It’s not like that for the sane on planet earth.

        When I first started having a look at this case, I considered all possibilities and all theories, but very quickly logic leads you to various conclusions. I could write you a short piece showing why the McCanns clearly cannot be considered suspects, but that would take away some of the ‘fun’ and half the angles for your musings. And I suppose the suspicions and the turning of the press are what made this sad story such a seller…

        It’s real, though… that’s all I’m saying. A human tragedy. And I do think those more gruesome musings are unnecessary, because you’re not really bringing the case forward at all with that- ‘Textusa’ cannot be taken seriously by anybody with half a brain. It’s pointless to critique such ramblings.

      • Please feel free to write the piece you are thinking of. As per usual, if it is both legal and civil I will be happy to cut and paste it to a new topic.

        Turning to the cup final idea, I happen to be a neutral. Whether the favourites win or the underdogs win is not my interest.

        Question. On one of the 2 Textusa posts I have critiqued, there is a lady reporter from the Algarve Resident. Should I ignore her, hoping she will go away, or learn the truth? Should I engage, given that she is writing for the Algarve?

      • Ah come on, you can’t be truly neutral- you must have an idea about what you consider the most likely cause of the child’s disappearance, one way or another. I understand why you’re going for that angle, of course.

        As to who is the underdog, I would have no idea. But you’re likely looking at a scoreless draw, with lots of extra time, and no goals… but then no penalties to follow. I’d be interested to know which of the two sides you consider to be underdogs, though? Care to share?

        No idea who the journalist is. No idea what she is saying. Engage away, learn the truth, as you put it. You don’t need to buy her line, but find out how she got there, perhaps?

      • I don’t have any problem in stating my position wrt either question.

        I would consider the underdogs to be, by far, the McCanns. I care not that they had arguido status lifted. I care not that the verdict is going with them in the Amaral trial. I think they have minority support in the UK, whilst elsewhere it ranges from negligible support to fairly straight forward vilification. I think they have done and said some truly dumb things in their quest. Not just a little bit off but spectacularly off, and as a consequence they might win legal battles, but many consider them guilty as sin.

        I am not interested in joining in debates about what I would have done in a similar situation. That defines a waste of time. I am not interested in conducting a behavioural analysis of the McCanns. That defines a waste of time.

        For me, the battleground for the McCanns is about the twins. Explaining to them about all the things they chose not to do whilst claiming to pursue every angle. Those kids are about to enter secondary school, which I would class as THE most brutal time of a person’s life. They are going to need all the luck they can get.

        So let’s move on to ‘my theory’. I don’t have one.

        I see alternate explanations, each with a probability attached. As evidence is gathered, the probabilities change. None of the possibilities stands out as a sure fire favourite, or close to it, therefore I find it easy not to back any particular horse.

        On the journalist front, I have no idea what her line is, and my way of thinking was that she might learn from me, not the other way around. It sounds conceited when it is put that way, I know.

      • So, just for clarity, you’d see the McCanns being directly involved in the disappearance as one of the possibilities still, albeit remote?

        You say they’re underdogs, but, presumptuous as it might be for me to suggest it, as it’s your country… but do you think your perception of UK public opinion on the case is swayed slightly from looking at those forums and/or the comments on articles? Because those are a few disturbed people making a lot of noise. I don’t think they’re representative of the average citizen.

        In Ireland, as ever, I think the vast majority of the people are supportive of the McCanns. The McCanns have stated that half of all the supportive letters they got were from here, which is quite considerable given the size of population.

        But Ireland is a far less stratified society… the High Kings long gone, there is far less obsession about class than you see across the Irish Sea.

        That’s relevant because a large part of the ill feeling I observe is, shall we say lower-class people complaining that the McCanns got away with child neglect because they were middle-class. Or ‘what about Ben Needham? Was he not posh enough to look for properly’. That kind of vibe.

        The other stuff is generally sectarian nonsense, combined with a huge lack of knowledge of history/politics. Loads of anti-Catholic bilge, combined with obsessions about GM, a Catholic, supposedly running a masonic lodge… which is hilarious if you know anything about Catholics or masons.

        The third factor was success. Handsome couple, both doctors, lovely family… other people get jealous.

        In each of the three factors why people seemed to turn on the McCanns, a good dose of stupidity does not hurt. Nor does mean-spiritedness… you see that in spades with the major interweb trolls who have been at this full-time for years.

        I agree about the mistakes the McCanns made. The obvious one is leaving the children, but as far as the investigation went, you must say pushing Tannerman and burying Smithman was a potential howler. Hindsight is 20-20 too, though. But I do think that was unhelpful. Any others off the top of your head?

      • I like this a lot.

        Sectarian nonsense takes me back to my youth, when official state teaching was that the only good Catholic was one roasting in the flames of Hell. Yes, my religious instruction was obligatory under the laws of the land. And yes, the Church of Scotland minister did say this in a lesson, literally.

        So I had a think about his sermon. And, hello I had a couple of Catholic friends who seemed like if you needed a hand, they would be happy to help you out.

        The order in which I got over prejudices was, I think, Catholics first, blacks second, gender third. We didn’t really have enough blacks to be prejudiced about them to make them a priority. And yes, I was friends with folks in those days who would be classified as black.

        Burn your bra came later.

  2. Actually looked at a few other comparable cases recently… many in which the police focus solely on the parents, and get it wrong, and one in which they did just that, and were right, but ballsed up the conviction. The balls-up is a constant throughout.

    In the latter, a journalist asked the father of the missing child ‘you do realise when a child goes missing, statistics suggest that in 999 cases out of 1000 the child’s parents or family members are guilty?’

    He replied ‘guess what- you’re looking at the 1/1000’. He is guilty as sin, though. And free as a bird. He and the missus.

    You can see why the police often approach cases like this in such a fashion, but it can lead to disastrous consequences. Other motivations come into play then, such as pressure from the press, corruption and/or what seems at times personal vendetta.

    The thing that strikes me about such cases is the pattern being so similar in all of them, be they cases in which the parents are guilty of a crime, and the doubly tragic cases in which they are not, but become the sole focus of the investigation.

    • If we could use stats in this manner, it would have been done and dusted 8 years ago. Fact is we can’t, and so the case rumbles on.

      I cannot comment on other cases. The sole reason I can comment on the Madeleine McCann case is that via a string of coincidences, we ended up in “Maddieville”, without even realising it was Maddieville. Fluke after fluke after fluke.

      Even then, it was only when SY was reported as going to be digging up central Luz a year ago that I got interested.

      I have neither the time nor the interest to look at comparable cases – whether Cipriano, Needham or others, which are probably meritorious. I am finding it tough going grinding away at the Madeleine McCann case.

      • Well, statistics are like the doggies… useless in of themselves, but can point at an avenue of investigation.

        I know you don’t want to discuss other comparable cases, which is why I omitted mentioning them by name. However, my point was, as absolutely unique as the McCann case seems in isolation, a little digging shows the investigation panned out along lines that you could say were predetermined by human behaviour/incompetence/corruption.

        You look at this case, and you can think it is an absolute one-off… It’s certainly probability-wise very rare… but it is not a one-off by any means. These unthinkable crimes happen, and then, in many cases the police make a balls of what is instantly a high-profile case in one way or another.

      • Just as a matter of interest, have you tried role-playing any of the senior PJ in this situation?

        Amaral was very much the bottom end in this scenario. Technically, he was in charge. In reality, someone dropped a nuclear bomb on him and his chances of coping were zero.

        So which approach in 2007 was better?

        The PJ’s no media, aka no publicity for Madeleine, aka no chance of stopping anything.

        Or the McCanns media in at dawn, aka maximum publicity for Madeleine, aka no chance of stopping anything.

        Amaral hadn’t a clue how to handle the situation. The McCanns hadn’t a clue how to handle the situation. Why should either of these parties have known better or done better? If someone can tell me this, I will be a big step forward.

  3. ” I could write you a short piece showing why the McCanns clearly cannot be considered suspects” I would very much like to see this, can you indulge me?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.