@FerryMan
"In these terms, the pieces of clothing recovered [from the home] were laid out individually in accordance with instructions given by the British technicians, the dogs [then] walking the area where they [those pieces of clothing] were laid out by order and with the following results described below"
That paragraph is a summary of the following (numbered) paragraphs
I query why there was no gap between the laying out of the clothing and the commencement of the search.
In fact, I query why there was a search of clothing
at all.
These were not clothes kept in some special storage pending the investigation.
They were clothes in everyday use as clothes are: worn, washed, hung out on washing lines, packed in suitcases.
The point is frequently (and rightly) made that there was zero reference to cross-contamination of any (hypothetical) scent on clothing.
But that didn't matter.
The inspection came 3 months after the crime; cross-contamination (if it was going to occur) would, long since, already have done so.
The key questions are: what was the point of any inspection at all?
And why a re-inspection of clothing already inspected once (in the villa) without result?