The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work
What an interesting thing for you to say, " ... ... ... it wasn't a false alert the dogs detected the scent of death, just the wrong death."
Thankfully, Shannon was and is alive ... but precious time was taken up by the dogs' positive alert to human remains which might have altered that situation.
What an indictment you make of Mr Amaral and the quality of the investigation led by him and his team. You seem to find the incompetence of the biggest mistake in the book laudable.
"Amaral and his team already suspected the McCanns of something, the dog alerts seemed to confirm their suspicions."
Are you really having a laugh here?
No competent investigation twists the evidence to suit the theory ... particularly when there is no evidence to begin with ... "seemed" just doesn't cut the mustard.
As far as Mr Amaral's investigation finding nothing is concerned, that is hardly surprising if you are not looking.
For example Heri makes very good points regarding the phone data http://espacioexterior.blogspot.co.uk/ which he is not presently allowed to access most of which was ignored by the Amaral investigation and which competent investigators from the PJ and SY had to check out years down the line.
Investigators who are of the opinion that in the absence of evidence to the contrary Madeleine may well be alive and was the victim of a stranger abduction.
That the Amaral investigation relied on unsubstantiated dog alerts and an alleged dream to make Madeleine's parents suspect in her disappearance is risible if it wasn't so serious, but it certainly highlights the amateur manner in which he conducted his investigation.
Because a dog alerted to the scent of death in the home of Shannon Mathews,
I do wonder what conclusion would have been arrived at, had the child been found deceased in a wood or somewhere else.
Would they have investigated the possibility of the furniture in the home, being purchased from a deceased person?
How could they know that the scent that was supposedly alerted too, was on furniture or who that scent belonged too?
How do you check any antique or pre-owned furniture you may purchase, for cadaver scent? You can not!
There are so many possible reasons for an alert of cadaver dog, that I do not believe any can be reliable, unless a body is found in the location of that alert. Just my opinion, of course.
