If dogs are pointless, why are they used extensively by police services, customs services, etc., around the world ?
They are used to suggest targets for further examination.
If nothing is found to prove the dog alerts were accurate (as in the McCann case) then no further action is taken.
If a dog alerts to you, for example at an airport, and you are checked thoroughly for any untoward substances etc. and nothing is found, then you are allowed to leave the airport and get on with your life. You are not deemed guilty of an offence.
As with the McCanns, there were thorough checks and nothing was found which directly corroborated the dog alerts. Therefore the McCanns are not deemed guilty by normal people.
It is only those who throw the law on its head who believe the McCanns guilty because of uncorroborated dog alerts.
Or perhaps you are in the habit of believing that there is some mysterious limbo of guilt without charge, into which all those alerted to by dogs at airports and against whom no evidence of any crime was found (as in the case of the McCanns) are thrown?
There is no evidence of neglect by the McCanns and the dogs will never no matter how you try to disrupt this thread prove any neglect by them.
Nor will you ever convince those who have fully read the Archival report or those whose understanding that hindsight is a wonderful thing, that there was any neglect by the McCanns. That is only your opinion with the full benefit of hindsight (see this thread
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2011.0 ).
ps and don't ask that hoary old chestnut much beloved of anti McCanns, "If a dog alerted to a bomb on a plane or in a theatre and no device was found, would you fly on that plane?" because the answer is from me a definitive, "Yes". I am aware that after such alerts, the most thorough checks are done and no airline or theatre would ever allow passengers to board or customers to take their seats knowing that they could be accused of effectively killing those people were there have to have been a bomb.
Alerts are merely "suggestive". That is the precise word used by Martin Grime. He does not call them "absolute", "definitive" or anything similar. He knows that they are not. Perhaps it is time that anti McCanns also realised that as well? Then they might understand that their pathetic and wrong-headed insistence that alerts without evidence as in the McCanns case are not the signs of guilt that they claim them to be.