Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[faithlilly]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the dog alerts in this case occurred in 2007, the NPIA report which found that sniffer dogs could actually hamper police work occured in 2011, so why do you require more recent reports, do you think there is one which contradicts the findings of the NPIA?  If there is then by all means post it yourself.   I have not made any claim about fixtures and fittings in 5a so am at a loss as to why you would require me to find proof that they did have a connection to a dead body, though if I may I would like to ask the question - was the provenance of each stick of furniture in that apartment traced, and if not, why not?

As we are looking at the weight OG give to the cadaver dog alerts NOW then a report with the most up to date information of how alerts are viewed and used NOW would be helpful. Out of date reports really do not move us much further forward.

You are right that you made no claims about the fixtures and fittings of 5a but as the report you posted referred to them as the cause of dog alerts I thought that’s what you were putting forward as the reason for the alerts in 5a. Wasn’t that the case ?

As to your last question are you now saying that furniture may have played a part ?

[Brietta]

The only thing that OG don't believe in was Tannerman,nothing else has got a mention.

In my opinion you are expressing the wrong opinion regarding 'Tannerman'.  In my opinion DCI Redwood vindicated Jane Tanner's sighting ... the rest is in the detail.

[faithlilly]

In my opinion you are expressing the wrong opinion regarding 'Tannerman'.  In my opinion DCI Redwood vindicated Jane Tanner's sighting ... the rest is in the detail.

No matter what your opinion it is obvious that by relentlessly pushing Tannerman as the probable abductor a great deal of time, and money, was wasted pursuing the wrong man. There really is nothing positive about that.

[Vertigo Swirl]

As we are looking at the weight OG give to the cadaver dog alerts NOW then a report with the most up to date information of how alerts are viewed and used NOW would be helpful. Out of date reports really do not move us much further forward.

You are right that you made no claims about the fixtures and fittings of 5a but as the report you posted referred to them as the cause of dog alerts I thought that’s what you were putting forward as the reason for the alerts in 5a. Wasn’t that the case ?

As to your last question are you now saying that furniture may have played a part ?

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  In 2011, the NPIA found that police work could be hampered by dog alerts, based on information they had gathered up to that point and recommended systems be put in place to address various issues.  The alerts in the McCann case happened well before these changes were made, so why do you think a more recent report about standards of reliability of dog alerts in police work would be relevant exactly?  In any case, I'm sure you'd agree that if there was a more recent report that said actually the NPIA report was incorrect and that police work is not and has never been hampered by sniffer dogs then those of us who follow this case would have heard about it by now.  These things are hardly top secret. 
I am putting forward no reason for the the alerts in 5a, nor am I saying that furniture played a part, but given that we know from another case that furniture played a part in an alert, it would be reasonable (would it not?) to investigate whether or not it did in this case.  If this is an unreasonable suggestion perhaps you could explain why.

[Mr Gray]

As we are looking at the weight OG give to the cadaver dog alerts NOW then a report with the most up to date information of how alerts are viewed and used NOW would be helpful. Out of date reports really do not move us much further forward.

You are right that you made no claims about the fixtures and fittings of 5a but as the report you posted referred to them as the cause of dog alerts I thought that’s what you were putting forward as the reason for the alerts in 5a. Wasn’t that the case ?

As to your last question are you now saying that furniture may have played a part ?

As you have claim you can quote case upon case of the alerts being used in investigations then quote a couple of cases where they have been used in the last two years... Then we will have up to date information... The one case, you have quoted.... Gilroy... The alerts, do not seem to have been of any real importance to the conviction..
I doubt you will be able to quote any

[Vertigo Swirl]

I guess Faithlilly raises an interesting point about the shelf-life of reports though.  For how long does any report on any particular subject remain valid? Is it out of date within 24 hours, 24 days, 24 months, 24 years?   If we can find no recent report about the reliability of cadaver dogs, are we OK to dismiss the claims as not worth the paper they're written on if the report is over a number of months or years old?

[faithlilly]

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning.  In 2011, the NPIA found that police work could be hampered by dog alerts, based on information they had gathered up to that point and recommended systems be put in place to address various issues.  The alerts in the McCann case happened well before these changes were made, so why do you think a more recent report about standards of reliability of dog alerts in police work would be relevant exactly?  In any case, I'm sure you'd agree that if there was a more recent report that said actually the NPIA report was incorrect and that police work is not and has never been hampered by sniffer dogs then those of us who follow this case would have heard about it by now.  These things are hardly top secret. 
I am putting forward no reason for the the alerts in 5a, nor am I saying that furniture played a part, but given that we know from another case that furniture played a part in an alert, it would be reasonable (would it not?) to investigate whether or not it did in this case.  If this is an unreasonable suggestion perhaps you could explain why.

At the time of the report the NPIA was not incorrect because it was based on the knowledge they had then. Our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on so it would be ridiculous to assume the police’s understanding of the dog alerts hasn’t. OG will be using the knowledge they have now to understand the alerts.

Again just for clarity, the report, if you insist on referring to it, did not say that the alerts were unreliable, on the contrary each time that a dog alerted then there was a dead body connected to that alert and, in the end, the source of that alert was identified. The detrimental effect of having to deploy extra resources  to identify the source is the object of the report. The reliability of the dogs is not.

As to the dogs alerting to the furniture in 5a, why 5a and no other properties that the dogs were deployed in ? Is this another one of those ‘coincidences’ Kate talks of ?

[Alice Purjorick]

I guess Faithlilly raises an interesting point about the shelf-life of reports though. For how long does any report on any particular subject remain valid? Is it out of date within 24 hours, 24 days, 24 months, 24 years?   If we can find no recent report about the reliability of cadaver dogs, are we OK to dismiss the claims as not worth the paper they're written on if the report is over a number of months or years old?

Until it is proven to be invalid following review by a group of experts in that particular field ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Until it is proven to be invalid following review by a group of experts in that particular field ?

Sounds good to me.

[Vertigo Swirl]

At the time of the report the NPIA was not incorrect because it was based on the knowledge they had then. Our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on so it would be ridiculous to assume the police’s understanding of the dog alerts hasn’t. OG will be using the knowledge they have now to understand the alerts.

Again just for clarity, the report, if you insist on referring to it, did not say that the alerts were unreliable, on the contrary each time that a dog alerted then there was a dead body connected to that alert and, in the end, the source of that alert was identified. The detrimental effect of having to deploy extra resources  to identify the source is the object of the report. The reliability of the dogs is not.

As to the dogs alerting to the furniture in 5a, why 5a and no other properties that the dogs were deployed in ? Is this another one of those ‘coincidences’ Kate talks of ?

Could you kindly provide a cite to back up your statement that our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on since 2011, and also how this knowledge negates the findings of the NPIA report which was that dog work can hamper police investigations, thanks in advance. 
Re; your second para, I made no claim that the report said the dogs were unreliable, only that their use had the potential to hamper police work.
re: your third para: until we know the provenance of the furniture in 5a how can we answer the question either way?  You have refrained from saying whether or not checking out the furniture would have been a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

[Mr Gray]

At the time of the report the NPIA was not incorrect because it was based on the knowledge they had then. Our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on so it would be ridiculous to assume the police’s understanding of the dog alerts hasn’t. OG will be using the knowledge they have now to understand the alerts.

Again just for clarity, the report, if you insist on referring to it, did not say that the alerts were unreliable, on the contrary each time that a dog alerted then there was a dead body connected to that alert and, in the end, the source of that alert was identified. The detrimental effect of having to deploy extra resources  to identify the source is the object of the report. The reliability of the dogs is not.

As to the dogs alerting to the furniture in 5a, why 5a and no other properties that the dogs were deployed in ? Is this another one of those ‘coincidences’ Kate talks of ?

Once again.. The dogs did not alert to sites in 5a according to the pj
..they eventually  alerted to sites they had previously  ignored... It seems they we're given more time to alert in 5a

[faithlilly]

I guess Faithlilly raises an interesting point about the shelf-life of reports though.  For how long does any report on any particular subject remain valid? Is it out of date within 24 hours, 24 days, 24 months, 24 years?   If we can find no recent report about the reliability of cadaver dogs, are we OK to dismiss the claims as not worth the paper they're written on if the report is over a number of months or years old?

You do know that the report was not on the reliability of the dogs but how the reliability of their alerts sometimes send an investigation in the wrong direction.

[faithlilly]

Could you kindly provide a cite to back up your statement that our knowledge of how the dogs work has moved on since 2011, and also how this knowledge negates the findings of the NPIA report which was that dog work can hamper police investigations, thanks in advance. 
Re; your second para, I made no claim that the report said the dogs were unreliable, only that their use had the potential to hamper police work.
re: your third para: until we know the provenance of the furniture in 5a how can we answer the question either way?  You have refrained from saying whether or not checking out the furniture would have been a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

Okay. 1. It is simply common sense that, with the research which is being carried out on the subject, that our knowledge of how cadaver dogs work will have moved on.

2. I didn't say you did.

3. Checking the furniture would have been an excellent idea. Do you know whether the PJ did not at the time or it has been done since ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You do know that the report was not on the reliability of the dogs but how the reliability of their alerts sometimes send an investigation in the wrong direction.

Yes, and I have repeatedly said so.  You however are dismissing the report on the grounds that it is out of date, so what do you expect a more recent report to say that contradicts the NPIA report?  That dog alerts never send the investigation in the wrong direction, and that the NPIA report was wholly mistaken?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Okay. 1. It is simply common sense that, with the research which is being carried out on the subject, that our knowledge of how cadaver dogs work will have moved on.

2. I didn't say you did.

3. Checking the furniture would have been an excellent idea. Do you know whether the PJ did not at the time or it has been done since ?

I accept your answers 2 and 3 but answer number 1 simply won't do I'm afraid.  You have made a claim that our understanding of dog alerts (inasmuch as how they affect the direction of an investigation, as per the NPIA report which is what we were discussing and which you rejected for being out of date) will have moved on, but that is only your belief and with no report cited, I'm afraid it has to remain just that -  a belief. 
Going back to point 3 I have no idea if the furniture has been tested since the case was closed the first time, but have no reason to believe it was in 2007-2008.  Do we know if it was the same furniture in situ when the investigation re-opened in 2013, and if it was wouldn't the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people had used it since make a nonsense of any such test?