you say beyond doubt,....the dog handlers say different..
- I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
- Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
then take this into account..
It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
that doesnt sound like beyond doubt to me....all taken from the files
Also taken from the files and from the same statement;
He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor.
Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that
it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htmThese were the tracker dogs from Lisbon. Before they arrived the patrol dogs had already followed the same track.
The tracker dogs had another go on 8th, which is what your quotes mostly refer to.